5EPARA1LS 


STRICT  CONGREGATIONAL 

Op 

.AND  ;; 


it    :  ll 


S.L,BLAKE,D.D. 


H 

:  hi  i 


itii'r.!   1  iijii 
!ii!i!iH    i! 


1111 

1  is  iiiiill! 


MP 


lilli 


1 


1 

I 


{OF  fgjj 


Section /^Q.^o 


THE  SEPARATES 


OR 


Strict  Congregationalists  of 
New  England 


BY 


Rev.  S.  LEROY    BLAKE,  d.  d. 

Pastor  of  the  First  Church  of  Christ 
New  London,  Connecticut 


With  an  Introduction  by 
Prof.  WILLISTON   WALKER,  D.  D. 


BOSTON 

€i)e  pilgrim  $re££ 

CHICAGO 


Copyright,  1902 
By  S.  Leroy  Blake 


Introduction 

By  Prof.  Williston  Walker,  d.  d. 

Among  the  more  important  of  the  consequences 
of  that  vast  religious  upheaval  in  eighteenth  century- 
New  England,  of  which  Whitefield's  preaching  was 
the  most  striking  episode,  was  the  revolt  against  the 
conservatism,  formalism  and  rigid  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline of  the  established  churches  of  these  colonies, 
to  which  the  title,  "Separatist  Movement,"  has  usual- 
ly been  given.  The  "Great  Awakening,"  as  the  re- 
vival in  general  has  been  called,  well  deserves  its 
fame  as  the  most  wide-spread  and  intense  spiritual 
quickening  in  New  England  history.  No  other 
epoch  of  New  England  story  has  witnessed  so  gen- 
erally diffused  an  interest  in  spiritual  concerns  or  has 
beheld  so  extensive  a  manifestation  of  the  visible 
working  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men 
as  the  years  1740,  1741  and  1742,  when  the  revival 
was  at  its  height.  It  stands  in  retrospect  like  a 
mountain  peak  in  colonial  religious  history  above  the 
monotonous  level  characteristic  of  the  eighteenth 
century. 

But  the  "Great  Awakening"  is  not  remarkable 
only  for  its  accessions  to  the  churches  and  its  quick- 
ening of  the  life  of  the  spirit.  In  some  respects  its 
methods  and  its  characteristic  manifestations  were 


4  ]       The  Separates 

unparalleled  in  New  England  history.  It  was  distin- 
guished far  beyond  any  revival  in  this  region  beside, 
by  fervent  appeals  to  the  feelings  resulting  in  emo- 
tional excitement  sufficient  oftentimes  to  produce 
striking  physical  effects,  and  by  such  a  sense  of  the 
divine  presence  and  of  the  reality  of  unseen  things  as 
led  many  who  came  under  its  power  to  claim  visions 
and  spiritual  gifts  not  granted  to  Christians  in  more 
ordinary  times.  These  more  unusual   and  ex- 

travagant manifestations  were  opposed,  indeed,  by 
the  vast  majority  of  the  ministry  of  New  England; 
but  they  were  wide-spread  and  impressive  among 
the  humbler  and  more  ignorant  subjects  of  the 
"Great  Awakening." 

Born  of  the  intenser  manifestations  of  the  revival 
and  emphasizing  thus  its  more  emotional  and  transi- 
tory aspects,  the  Separatist  movement  had  in  itself 
from  the  first  the  seeds  of  ultimate  dissolution.  Its 
adherents  laid  weight  on  bodily  effects  as  evidences 
of  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  They  denied 
the  necessity  of  an  educated  ministry.  They  be- 
lieved themselves  so  gifted  with  the  "key  of  knowl- 
edge," as  to  be  able  to  discern  by  spiritual  intui- 
tion who  were  truly  Christians  and  who  were  not. 
They  regarded  discipline  as  a  prime  duty.  Holding 
such  opinions,  prevailingly  recruited  from  the  more 
ignorant  and  less  well-to-do  portion  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  persecuted  by  the  heavy  hand  of  the 
colonial  government  for  many  years,  it  is  no  won- 
der that  the  Separatists  as  a  whole  ended  in  dis- 
aster. 


Introduction  5 

Yet  these  traits  were  far  from  exhausting  the 
characteristics  of  the  Separatist  movement,  and  had 
they  been  all,  that  movement  would  have  lost  much 
of  the  significance  which  properly  belongs  to  it. 
The  Separatists  were  in  large  degree  a  protest* 
against  the  departure  of  eighteenth  century  Con- 
gregationalism from  its  earlier  ideals.  The  lapse 
of  a  century  since  the  planting  of  the  New  England 
churches  had  resulted  in  great  modifications.  The 
dying  out  of  the  fire  of  the  original  spiritual  zeal 
in  which  the  colonies  were  planted  was  followed 
by  a  decreasing  intensity  of  religious  experience 
and  a  diminishing  emphasis  in  preaching  on  the 
possibility  and  necessity  of  a  conscious  "conversion," 
such  as  had  prevailed  in  early  New  England.  Since 
men  had  little  of  striking  religious  experience  to 
tell,  the  custom  of  "relations"  of  God's  dealings 
with  the  soul  passed  into  comparative  disuse  as  a 
condition  of  entrance  into  church-membership. 
New  England  preaching,  till  awakened  by  the  re- 
vival, had  been  growing  formal  and  increasingly 
essay-like  for  two  generations.  And,  in  Connec- 
ticut at  least,  a  state-supported  ecclesiastical  organ- 
ization, approaching  Presbyterian  government  in 
several  of  its  features,  had  taken  the  place  of  the 
freedom  of  earlier  Congregationalism. 

Most  disastrous  of  all  was  the  Half-Way  Cove- 
nant system.  Begun  by  earnest  pastors  in  the  sev- 
enteenth century  in  an  honest  desire  to  hold  young 
people    under    the    watch    and    discipline    of    the 


6  The  Separates 

churches,  it  really  lowered  the  spiritual  tone  of  the 
churches  as  a  whole.  It  established  a  half-way  house 
between  a  neglect  of  Christian  privileges  and  a  full 
acknowledgment  of  the  claims  of  the  gospel.  Those 
who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy  by  reason  of  their 
parents'  Christian  profession  were  now  allowed  and 
encouraged  to  bring  their  own  children  for  bap- 
tism and  a  similar  church-membership  even  if  con- 
scious themselves  of  no  regenerative  change.  Such 
imperfect  members  satisfied  the  conditions  of  their 
"half-way"  status  if  they  gave  intellectual  assent 
to  the  main  doctrines  of  the  Christian  faith  and 
agreed  to  submit  themselves  to  church  discipline. 
The  chief  evil  of  the  system  was  that  it  encouraged 
men  and  women  to  do  something  to  which  they  and 
the  church  alike  ascribed  value;  but  something,  nev- 
ertheless, far  short  of  a  full  consecration  to  Christ 
and  his  service.  Having  "owned  the  covenant"  and 
entered  into  "half-way"  membership,  they  too  easily 
satisfied  themselves  that  they  had  done  all  possible 
for  themselves  and  their  children. 

Against  all  these  serious  modifications  of  earlier 
Congregationalism  the  Separatists  protested.  They 
were  not  the  only  ones  in  our  churches  who  antag- 
onized these  evils.  The  more  strenuous  supporters 
of  the  "Great  Awakening"  who  never  left  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  established  churches  did  so  very 
generally.  But  the  Separatists  were  determined  and 
consistent  opponents  of  these  things,  and  in  their 
attitude  they  are  amply  justified  by  later  Congre- 


Introduction  7 

gational  history.  Whatever  their  errors  and  short- 
comings in  other  respects, — and  the  following  nar- 
rative shows  that  these  were  fatally  numerous, — the 
Separatists  were  right  in  their  opposition  to  many 
serious  spiritual  declensions  in  the  churches  of  their 
day. 

This  movement,  never  told  heretofore  with  the  ful- 
ness that  it  deserves,  has  found  a  painstaking  and 
sympathetic  historian  in  Dr.  S.  L.  Blake,  and 
students  of  eighteenth  century  New  England  re- 
ligious story  will  welcome  his  narrative  of  the  rise, 
growth  and  decline  of  the  Separatists.  The  epi- 
sode is  one  well  deserving  the  labor  and  care  which 
he  has  bestowed  upon  its  presentation. 


A  Foreword 

In  "Some  Aspects  of  the  Religious  Life  of  New 
England,"  Dr.  George  Leon  Walker,  speaking  of 
the  Separates  of  Connecticut,  says,  "The  subject 
deserves  a  fuller  investigation  than  it  has  ever  yet 
received."  He  also  speaks  of  it  as  "a  chapter  which 
still  awaits  its  proper  treatment  at  the  hands  of  some 
painstaking  and  sympathetic  historian."  In  pre- 
paring the  second  volume  of  the  history  of  the  first 
Church  of  Christ,  New  London,  Connecticut,  the 
writer  found  a  considerable  wealth  of  material  con- 
cerning this  unwritten  chapter  of  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory in  New  England.  He  also  became  aware  that 
more  was  within  reach,  much  of  which  had  never 
seen  the  light.  He  was  led  to  further  investigation 
and  found  so  much  that  he  resolved  to  gather  the 
material  into  a  volume.  Besides,  on  studying  the 
subject,  as  it  presented  itself,  the  writer,  while  recog- 
nizing the  many  foolish  extravagances  of  the  "New 
Lights,"  as  they  were  often  called,  yet  found  him- 
self so  in  sympathy  with  many  of  tiheir  contentions 
that  he  seemed  to  himself  so  far  forth  to  fulfil  Dr. 
Walker's  condition  of  a  "sympathetic  historian." 

The  story  is  a  somewhat  thrilling  one.  It  throws 
a  strange  light  upon  religious  liberty  in  Connecticut 
between  1742  and  1784.    The  materials  were  gath- 


io  The  Separates 

ered  from  many  sources.  The  following  are  the 
principal  authorities  consulted : 

Diary  of  Joshua  Hempstead,  covering  the  period 
when  the  movement  was  in  its  strength. 

Records  of  the  First  Church  of  Christ,  New  Lon- 
don. 

Original  Records  of  the  Separate  Church  in 
Preston. 

Original  Memorial  of  the  same  church  petitioning 
the  legislature  for  relief  from  taxation  in  support  of 
the  Established  Church. 

History  of  the  Preston  Separate  Church  by  A.  A. 
Browning,  Esq.,  of  Norwich. 

History  of  the  Newent  (Lisbon)  Separate 
Church,  in  manuscript. 

Colonial  Records  of  Connecticut. 

Annals  of  Saint  James,  New  London,  by  R.  A. 
Hallam,  d.  d. 

History  of  New  London,  by  Miss  Caulkins. 

History  of  Norwich,  by  Miss  Caulkins. 

History  of  Windham  County,  by  Miss  Ellen  D. 
Larned. 

Gleanings  from  the  History  of  Windham  County, 
by  the  same  author. 

History  of  the  Enfield,  Conn.,  Separate  Church, 
by  Rev.  O.  W.  Means,  ph.  d.,  a  most  excellent 
monograph. 

History  of  Montville. 

History  of  the  Suffolk  Congregational  Associa- 


A  Foreword  n 

Hon,  Long  Island,  by  Rev.  William  I.  Chalmers  of 
Riverhead,  L.  I. 

Contributions  to  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Con- 
necticut. 

History  of  Connecticut }  by  Benjamin  Trumbull, 

D.  D. 

Early  History  of  Christ  Church  Parish,  Guilford, 
by  Rev.  William  G.  Andrews,  d.  d. 

Great  Awakening,  by  Rev.  Joseph  Tracy. 

Congregationalists  in  America,  by  Rev.  A.  E. 
Dunning,  d.  d. 

History  of  Congregationalism,  by  Rev.  George 
Punchard. 

History  of  Congregationalists  in  Massachusetts, 
by  Rev.  J.  S.  Clark,  d.  d. 

Baptists  in  Norwich,  by  Denison. 

History  of  Beneficent  Church,  Providence,  R.  I., 
by  Rev.  J.  G.  Vose,  d.  d. 

Some  Aspects  of  the  Religious  Life  of  New  Eng- 
land, by  Rev.  George  Leon  Walker,  d.  d. 

History  of  the  Congregational  Churches,  by  Prof. 
Williston  Walker,  d.  d. 

One  Hundred  and  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the 
Soufli  Congregational  Church,  Middletown,  Conn., 
by  Rev.  Frederick  W.  Green. 

Journal  of  Rev.  Jacob  Eliot,  Goshen,  Conn.,  in 
manuscript. 

The  New  Englander,  1853,  pp.  195  f. 

The  Diary  of  Rev.  Ezra  Stiles,  d.  d.,  Vol.  I. 


12  The  Separates 

Backus'  Church  History. 

Joel  S.  Ives'  Address  at  the  250th  Anniversary  of 
the  church  in  Stratford. 

S.    L.    B. 


Contents 

Introduction   3 

A  Foreword   9 

I 
Their  Rise  and  Cause 17 

II 
Their  Final  Separation    40 

III 
Their  Doctrines 65 

IV 
Their  Characteristics  and  Extrava- 
gances         89 

V 
Their  Persecutions 109 

VI 
Where  They  Were  and  What  Be- 
came of  Them  126 

VII 
Conclusion 199 


The  Separates 

OR 

Strict  Congregationalists 

OF 

New  England 


THEIR    RISE   AND   CAUSE 

As  a  fruit  of  the  Great  Awakening  of  1740  a 
number  of  churches  arose  in  southeastern  Connec- 
ticut, to  which  they  were  mostly  confined,  which 
were  seceders  from  the  standing  order,  and  were 
called  Separates,  and  New  Lights.  They  were 
Congregational  in  their  principles  and  practices, 
their  polity  and  belief.  But  they  flatly  refused  to 
be  governed  by  the  Saybrook  Platform.  As  this 
was  made  the  established  order  in  Connecticut, 
without  redress  after  1743,  they  put  themselves  into 
open  and  pronounced  antagonism  to  the  State.  They 
stood  on  the  original  Cambridge  Platform,  and  pre- 
ferred to  be  called,  as  they  called  themselves,  "Strict 
Congregationalisms."  As  such  they  could  secure  no 
exemption,  as  did  Baptists  and  Episcopalians,  from 
taxation  to  support  the  standing  order.  November 
4,  1745,  at  the  prolonged  trial  of  its  pastor,  Rev. 
Philemon  Robbins,  for  alleged  irregularities  in  his 
ministerial  conduct,  the  church  in  Branford  stood 
by  him  and  voted,  "That  we  renounce  the  Saybrook 
platform,  and  cannot  receive  it  as  a  rule  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline  in  this  church;  that  we  declare 
this  church  to  be  a  Congregational  church;  that  we 
receive  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
as  the  only  perfect  rule  and  platform  of  church  gov- 

17 


1 8  The  Separates 

ernment  and  discipline;  that  though  we  receive  the 
scriptures  as  the  only  perfect  rule,  yet  as  we  know  of 
no  human  composure  that  comes  nearer  to  the  scrip- 
tures in  matters  of  church  government  and  discipline 
than  the  Cambridge  platform,  so  we  approve  of  that 
for  substance,  and  take  it  for  our  platform,  agree- 
ably to  the  word  of  God."  Several  other  churches 
in  Connecticut  took  similar  action.  The  Branford 
church  does  not  seem  to  have  become  a  Separate 
church,  although  other  churches  did  which  formally 
adopted  the  Cambridge  platform. 

This  religious  movement  seems  to  have  begun  at 
New  London,  in  1742  and  1743,  where  a  separate 
society  was  organized  March  6  of  the  latter  year. 
As  this  movement  grew  out  of  the  Great  Awaken- 
ing, and  the  conditions  preceding  it,  we  naturally 
look  to  these  to  find  its  immediate  causes,  for  the 
loose  practices,  from  which  this  wide-spread  spirit- 
ual quickening  was  a  rebound,  were  the  primary 
reason  why  this  separation  from  the  churches  of 
the  established  order  took  place. 

To  appreciate  the  full  force  and  significance  oi 
the  great  spiritual  movement  in  1740,  it  will  be  nec- 
essary to  go  back,  and  trace  our  way  to  it  through 
the  spiritual  dearth  which  came  upon  the  churches 
with  ever  deepening  intensity  during  the  last  quar- 
ter of  the  seventeenth  and  the  first  half  of  the  eight- 
eenth centuries.  The  period  from  1630  to  1660,  the 
period  during  which  the  men  and  women  who 
planted  New  England  were  on  the  scene,  has  been 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  19 

called  its  golden  age.  Soon  after  the  close  of  this 
period  we  begin  to  hear  of  religious  declension.  In 
1679  a  synod  called  by  the  legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts left  on  record  an  acknowledgment  of  a 
"great  and  visible  decay  of  Godliness"  in  the  church- 
es. There  had  sprung  up  neglect  of  divine  worship, 
disregard  of  sacramental  observances,  pride,  pro- 
fanity, Sabbath-breaking,  and  kindred  vices  un- 
known to  the  first  generation  of  the  inhabitants  of 
New  England,  who  founded  her  colonies,  her 
churches,  and  composed  their  membership.  They 
were  "strict  in  doctrine,  in  discipline,  and  in  prac- 
tice." A  gentleman  of  eminent  character,  who  had 
lived  in  New  England  seven  years,  during  its  gold- 
en age,  said  that  he  did  not  once  hear  an  oath,  or  see 
a  drunken  man.  But  as  those  who  planted  the  col- 
onies passed  away,  and  a  new  generation  came  upon 
the  stage,  there  was  a  sensible  decline  in  godliness. 
The  children  did  not  inherit  the  virtues  of  the 
fathers.  As  generation  succeeded  generation  there 
was  a  still  greater  decline.  There  was  sound  preach- 
ing, much  fasting  and  prayer,  on  the  part  of  some 
for  the  special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  there 
was  a  general  decline  in  the  power  of  godliness,  a 
general  ease  and  security  in  sin  on  the  part  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  people.  This  spiritual  condi- 
tion prevailed  throughout  the  New  England  colo- 
nies. Men  who  had  the  interests  of  God's  kingdom 
at  heart  were  alarmed. 

There  were  revivals  of  greater  or  less  power  in 


20  The  Separates 

a  few  places,  but  no  general  awakening.  In  North- 
ampton there  were  several  seasons  of  deepened  and 
quickened  religious  sensibility.  The  greater  part  of 
the  young  people  in  the  town  were  reached,  and  ex- 
pressed concern  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  In 
1 72 1  the  town  of  Windham,  in  Connecticut,  under 
the  ministry  of  Rev.  Samuel  Whiting,  was  visited 
by  a  work  of  grace,  which  resulted  in  gathering 
eighty  persons  into  the  church.  The  whole  town 
was  moved  by  a  supreme  joy.  Persons  of  all  ages 
were  reached,  and  came  together  to  seek  the  Lord 
their  God.  The  First  Church  in  New  London 
shared,  to  some  extent,  in  this  work.  But  while 
some  places  were  thus  blessed,  the  larger  part  were 
not;  iniquity  abounded;  religion  decayed  through- 
out the  land.  In  many  of  the  towns  little  change 
was  wrought  in  spiritual  life,  or  in  the  moral  tone 
of  society.  These  revivals  were  not  of  the  sort  that 
reaches  and  remedies  these  radical  evils.  In  some 
cases,  at  least,  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  that 
deep  conviction  of  sin  which  drives  men  to  God,  and 
compels  them  to  turn  to  him.  They  were  of  that 
kind  which  arouses  the  sensibilities,  but  does  not 
change  the  will.  Mr.  Parsons,  who  was  settled  in 
Lyme  in  1730.  tells  us  that  he  urged  his  people  much 
to  good  works  and  to  attend  upon  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. Many  followed  the  pastor's  suggestion,  under 
the  impression  that  saving  grace  was  in  no  sense 
necessary  to  attendance  upon  that  ordinance.  Hence 
no  relation  of  experience  and  no  experience  of  re- 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  21 

newing  grace  were  required  of  those  who  came  into 
the  church.  Consequently  numbers  were  received 
who,  in  the  searching  light  of  the  Great  Awaken- 
ing, were  aroused  to  the  fact  that  they  were  still  in 
their  sins,  and  that  their  eternal  hope  was 
resting  on  sand.  The  pastor  was  obliged  to  tell 
them  that  he  feared  that  few  who  had  joined  the 
church  hitherto  under  his  ministry  had  been  really 
converted.  Matters  kept  going  from  bad  to  worse 
in  the  churches  until  1740,  when  the  Great  Awak- 
ening arrested  the  tide  and  profoundly  stirred  the 
churches;  men  were  convicted  of  sin  and  awoke  to 
the  need  of  something  deeper  and  more  radical  than 
good  works; — that  radical  change  called  the  new 
birth. 

The  immediate  cause  of  this  powerful  movement 
was  the  preaching  of  two  sermons  by  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards, at  Northampton  in  Massachusetts,  upon 
Justification  by  Faith.  He  took  strong  and  decided 
grounds  against  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
works,  which  had  been  preached,  and  had  grown 
and  spread  among  the  churches  in  the  form  of  the 
Half -Way  Covenant,  and  the  doctrine  that  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  a  converting  and  saving  ordinance 
— a  doctrine  strenuously  advocated  by  Solomon 
Stoddard,  the  predecessor  and  maternal  grand- 
father of  Edwards.  This  opinion  gained  distin- 
guished advocates.  Dr.  Charles  Chauncey,  of  Bos- 
ton, said,  "The  divinely  appointed  way,  in  which 
persons  become  members  of  the  visible  Church  of 


22  The  Separates 

Christ,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  supposition, 
that,  in  order  to  their  being  so,  they  must  be  sub- 
jects of  saving  faith,  or  judged  to  be  so."  This  was 
the  liberalism  of  the  eighteenth  century,  which  gave 
birth  to  the  more  advanced  free  thinking  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Its  presence  in  the  churches,  and  its 
wide  acceptance  by  them  between  1660  and  1740, 
explain  why  the  revivals  of  those  years  produced 
so  little  radical  change,  and  had  so  little  power  to 
arrest  the  moral  and  religious  decay.  They  also 
help  to  explain  why  the  Great  Awakening  itself  met 
with  bitter  opposition  from  some  whom  we  should 
expect  to  be  its  advocates,  and  why,  in  some  cases, 
so  disastrous  results  followed,  as  in  the  Separate 
movement. 

Edwards'  views  of  divine  truth  came  into  the  pre- 
vailing religious  conditions,  like  a  stream  from  a 
divine  fountain.  All  previous  efforts  to  secure  a 
revival  and  to  promote  spiritual  growth,  had  laid 
special  and  almost  exclusive  emphasis  upon  outward 
reform,  without  reference  to  a  change  of  heart,  till 
the  notion  came  to  prevail  that,  by  diligent  atten- 
tion to  good  works,  men  could,  in  an  important 
sense,  merit  and  win  the  favor  of  God,  without  for- 
mal and  definite  submission  of  the  will  to  him. 
When  Jonathan  Edwards  appeared  upon  the  scene 
and,  in  the  year  1734,  boldly  proclaimed  the  doc- 
trine of  justification  by  faith,  and  preached  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  a  radical  change  of  heart,  as  the 
only  way  of  securing  salvation,  the  religious  world 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  23 

was  startled.  The  state  of  spiritual  declension  had 
become  alarming.  Edwards'  preaching,  severe  as 
it  seems  to  us  of  a  later  generation,  was  like  re- 
freshing showers  coming  after  a  long  drought,  to 
refresh  and  gladden  the  thirsty  earth. 

To  appreciate  fully  the  low  spiritual  condition  of 
the  churches,  at  the  time  when  the  Great  Awaken- 
ing began,  it  will  be  instructive  to  trace  the  steps 
leading  to  this  condition. 

First  of  all  is  to  be  named  the  practice  of  the 
Half-Way  Covenant,  by  which  the  churches,  and  in 
some  cases  the  pulpits,  became  filled  with  people  who 
laid  no  claim  to  a  change  of  heart.  This  was  both 
a  fruit,  and  a  cause,  of  the  conditions  upon  which 
the  revival  of  1740  broke,  as  the  light  breaks  in  upon 
the  darkness.  It  was  a  fruit,  because  the  churches 
of  New  England,  founded  upon  the  doctrine  stated 
by  Hooker,  that  none  but  those  who  had  experience 
of  renewing  and  regenerating  grace  were  suitable  to 
become  members  of  Christ's  visible  body,  did  not 
depart  from  it  until  they  had  lost  the  deep  spiritual 
life  of  their  founders.  It  was  a  cause,  for  after 
the  churches  had  adopted  this  looser  practice  their 
spiritual  decay  became  more  rapid.  The  period  of 
its  widest  adoption  was  that  in  which  the  lowest 
type  of  piety  prevailed  in  the  churches.  Instead  of 
being,  as  it  was  originally  intended,  a  means  of  re- 
taining under  watch  and  discipline  of  the  church 
those  who  were  born  of  godly  parents,  but  were  slip- 
ping away,  it  became  the  method  of  entrance  into 


24  The  Separates 

covenant  relations  with  the  church  for  those  who 
could  advance  no  claim  of  birthright  even,  much 
less  of  personal  experience  of  renewing  grace.  In 
the  seasons  of  religious  interest  previous  to  the 
deeper,  more  radical  work  of  the  Great  Awakening, 
large  numbers  of  persons  who  had  a  quickened  sense 
of  obligation  were  admitted  to  Half- Way  Covenant 
membership.  Later  on  all  restrictions  were,  in  many 
cases,  removed,  and  such  persons  were  admitted  to 
the  privileges  of  full  fellowship.  Dr.  George  Leon 
Walker  says,  "But  however  conscientiously  devised, 
this  scheme  wrought  inevitable  mischief  to  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  period"  of  the  Puritan  decline. 
It  was  a  sort  of  easy  resting-place  between  utter 
neglect  of  religion,  and  a  full  surrender  to  its  claims. 
So  the  descendants  of  the  people,  who,  several  gen- 
erations before,  had  come  out  from  home,  and 
church  relationship,  as  a  protest  against  formalism, 
which  destroyed  the  spiritual  life  and  power  of  the 
churches,  dropped  into  the  very  same  error.  So 
strongly  intrenched  in  the  practice  of  the  churches 
did  the  Half- Way  Covenant  become  that,  even  under 
the  powerful  influences  of  the  Great  Awakening,  it 
continued  to  hold  open  their  doors  to  those  to  whom 
Hooker  would  have  refused  admission.  And  it  con- 
tinued in  a  measure  to  determine  their  policy,  with 
reference  to  the  admission  of  members,  until  the 
nineteenth  century.  It  was  against  this  practice  of 
filling  the  churches  with  unconverted  men  and 
women,  and  of  installing  men  as  pastors  who  had  no 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  25 

experience  of  renewing  grace,  that  the  Separate 
movement  was  a  protest.  Curiously  enough,  we 
have  here  the  spectacle  of  a  separation  from  the  de- 
scendants and  churches  of  the  Separatists  and  Puri- 
tans of  New  England,  for  the  same  reasons  which 
caused  those  Separatists  who  came  to  Plymouth, 
and  those  Puritans  who,  ten  years  later,  came  to 
Salem  and  Boston  with  Endicott  and  Winthrop, 
to  separate  from  the  Church  of  England. 

Another  cause  of  the  religious  decline  was  the 
state  of  war  in  which  the  colonies  were  almost 
without  cessation  for  more  than  fifty  years.  The 
French  war  broke  out  in  1689.  The  next  year  the 
expedition  against  Quebec  was  undertaken,  for 
which  the  colonies  furnished  troops.  Queen  Anne's 
war  broke  out  in  1703,  and  with  it  the  horrors  of 
Indian  incursions  and  their  awful  atrocities.  In 
1 70 1  was  the  abortive  expedition  against  Canada  by 
sea  and  land.  In  1735  and  later  were  other  disturb- 
ances of  a  similar  character.  Either  the  hostilities 
of  the  Indians,  or  the  assaults  of  the  French  kept 
the  colonies  in  a  state  of  constant  apprehension, 
which  was  particularly  annoying  to  Connecticut. 
Although  the  peace  of  Utrecht,  in  17 13,  put  an  end, 
for  the  time,  to  active  hostilities  between  the  French 
and  English,  yet  the  French  continued  to  incite 
the  Indians,  who  pillaged  the  English  settlements, 
and  killed,  or  carried  away  captive  many  of  the 
settlers.  The  history  of  the  colonies,  from  1700, 
and  earlier,  until  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  reads 


26  The  Separates 

like  the  story  of  a  running  fight,  with  only  here 
and  there  an  important  break  in  the  narrative. 

War,  in  whatever  form,  is  never  helpful  in  mat- 
ters of  religious  growth.  It  awakens  alarm.  It 
arouses  the  worst  passions  of  men.  It  disturbs  so- 
ciety and  engrosses  men's  thought  with  matters 
which  do  not  make  for  spiritual  life.  In  this  dis- 
turbed state,  of  so  long  standing,  religious  life  in 
New  England  sank  to  a  low  ebb.  The  churches 
became  an  easy  prey  to  those  materialistic  views 
and  practices  which  robbed  them  of  their  spirit- 
ual power. 

Civil  strife  was  yet  another  cause  of  that  de- 
cline, of  which  a  contemporary  said,  as  early  as 
1 70 1,  "It  is  too  observable,  that  the  Power  of  God- 
liness is  exceedingly  Decaying  and  Expiring  in  the 
Country."  The  attempts  of  Sir  Edmund  Andros 
to  bring  all  New  England  under  his  control  in 
1686;  the  attempted  exercise  of  authority  in  Con- 
necticut in  1687,  in  connection  with  which  was  the 
hiding  of  the  charter  in  the  Charter  Oak ;  the  quar- 
rel of  Thomas  Dudley  with  Massachusetts  from 
1702  to  1 71 5;  the  constant  suspense  in  which  the 
people  of  Connecticut  were  kept  by  the  controversies 
with  the  neighboring  colonies,  over  the  boundary 
lines,  some  of  which  were  not  settled  till  nearly 
the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,  were  not  con- 
ducive to  the  development  of  deep  religious  life. 
Massachusetts  lost  her  charter  in  1684.  Proceedings 
looking  to  similar  action  against  Connecticut  were 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  27 

instituted  in  1685.  Political  events  of  so  serious 
moment,  which  imperatively  commanded  men's  at- 
tention, and  which  so  vitally  concerned  their  ma- 
terial interests  were  not  favorable  to  that  attention 
to  spiritual  things,  which  is  essential  to  high  re- 
ligious states. 

Yet  another  source  of  irritation  was  the  in- 
troduction into  New  England  of  the  Established 
Church  of  Old  England — the  very  organization 
from  which  the  Separatists  of  Plymouth  and  the 
Puritans  of  Massachusetts  had  come  out.  If  the 
efforts  of  "The  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel,"  had  been  confined  to  its  original  purpose 
— -to  carry  the  gospel  to  the  Indians  of  North 
America — or  if  it  had  been  content  simply  to  plant 
churches  where  there  were  members  of  its  own 
communion,  the  case  would  have  been  different,  and 
created  less  disturbance.  But  the  society  enlarged 
its  scope  so  that  it  became  "A  Society  for  Aiding 
the  Church  of  England  in  America,"  and  it  soon 
proceeded  to  plant  its  churches  where  the  ground 
was  abundantly  occupied,  and  supplied  with  the 
ministrations  of  the  gospel,  though  not  after  the 
Episcopal  order. 

The  first  fruits  of  the  efforts  of  the  Propagation 
Society  in  Connecticut  was  the  founding  of  a  mis- 
sion in  Stratford  in  1706.  Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  of 
Guilford  says  that  this  mission  "was  undertaken 
chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  recent  emigrants  at  Strat- 
ford, who  were  already  Episcopalians."    For  twenty 


28  The  Separates 

years  this  was  the  only  mission  of  the  Propaga- 
tion Society  in  Connecticut.  Samuel  Johnson  said, 
"I  never  once  tried  to  proselyte  dissenters,  nor  do 
I  believe  any  of  the  other  ministers  did."  However, 
George  Keith,  a  converted  Quaker,  the  first  mis- 
sionary of  the  Propagation  Society  to  come  to 
America,  suggested  measures  which  he  believed 
"would  effectually  contribute  to  the  proselyting  of 
the  main  body  of  the  dissenting  people  to  their  An- 
cient mother,  the  Church  of  England."  And  yet, 
upon  his  representation,  the  Society  came  to  re- 
gard other  parts  of  America  as  more  in  need  of 
their  aid  than  the  two  Congregational  colonies,  which 
were  everywhere  supplied  with  ministers  and  meet- 
ing houses;  so  that  as  late  as  1728  the  Society  had 
but  two  missionaries  in  Connecticut,  and  three  in 
Massachusetts.  But  after  this  the  Propagation 
Society  pushed  its  work  with  full  vigor  in  the  New 
England  colonies. 

A  startling  result  of  the  labors  of  the  Propagation 
Society  was  the  conversion  to  Episcopacy,  in  1722, 
of  Dr.  Cutler,  the  rector  of  Yale  College,  and  five 
neighboring  Congregational  clergymen.  This  de- 
fection caused  deep  and  wide  alarm.  The  belief 
gained  ground  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  among 
some  of  the  prominent  clergymen  to  go  over  to 
the  Church  of  England,  and  take  the  people  of 
Connecticut  with  them.  The  fear  was  all  the  greater 
because  these  efforts  seemed  to  be  backed  up  by  gov- 
ernmental and  ecclesiastical  authority  from  abroad. 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  29 

It  also  was  justified  by  the  fact  that  several  promi- 
nent divines  had  already  taken  this  step,  and  many 
more  seemed  about  to  do  so.  The  secession  of  Sea- 
bury  and  Punderson  of  North  Groton,  a  few  years 
later,  did  not  allay  itihe  fear.  After  Punderson  had 
been  to  England  to  receive  orders,  he  returned  to 
North  Groton,  and  established  a  Church-of-England 
parish  by  the  side  of  the  Congregational  church 
of  which  he  had  been  the  pastor.  His  effort  drew 
so  largely  from  the  old  church,  that,  at  one  time, 
it  seemed  as  if  it  would  be  obliged  to  suspend. 
He  claimed  to  have  several  hundred  com- 
municants on  his  roll.  It  looked  dubious  for  a 
time  for  the  old  Puritan  church.  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  the  hearts  of  the  Congregationalists  of 
North  Groton  sank  within  them.  However,  the  old 
Puritan  church  remains,  while  Punderson's  move- 
ment left  nothing  behind  it. 

The  action  of  Thomas  Dudley,  and  an  edict  of 
Queen  Anne  in  1713,  served  to  give  impetus  to  the 
work  of  the  Propagation  Society  in  Massachusetts, 
which  at  once  undertook  to  plant  its  churches  in 
several  of  the  larger  towns  outside  of  Boston.  Con- 
necticut seems  to  have  been  favorable  ground  for  its 
operations,  for  the  Society  found  it  difficult  to 
meet  the  demands  upon  it.  There  was  a  growing 
eagerness  on  the  part  of  young  men  to  take  orders 
in  the  English  Church.  This  did  not  tend  to  allay 
apprehension.  Besides,  the  usage  of  the  English 
Church  with  respect  to  the  sacraments  of  baptism 


30  The  Separates 

and  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  directly  contrary  to  orig- 
inal Congregationalism,  as  expounded  and  prac- 
ticed by  Hooker,  Davenport,  and  others  of  the 
fathers  of  New  England.  Their  view  of  church 
order,  as  we  have  seen,  debarred  from  the  sacra- 
ments a  large  body  of  people  of  exemplary  lives 
whom  the  Anglican  Church  considered  as  eligible 
to  them.  This,  says  Dr.  Andrews  of  Christ  Church, 
Guilford,  "abundantly  justified  the  Society  for  the 
Propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  planting  missions  in  ■ 
this  Christian  commonwealth."  He  adds,  "that  the 
Church  of  England  steadily  increased  in  this  com- 
monwealth was  due  far  less  to  'aggressive  work'  on 
the  part  of  the  Anglican  clergy  than  to  the  fact  that 
the  Anglican  Church  supplied  what  Puritanism  had 
taught  men  to  value  as  their  lives,  and  New  Eng- 
land Congregationalism,  with  an  honorable,  though 
misguided  zeal  for  the  holiness  of  God's  house,  had 
placed  almost  out  of  their  reach."  Dr.  Andrews 
speaks  as  a  churchman  who  believes  that  men  may 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God  by  natural  birth  and  nur- 
ture. The  New  England  Congregationalist  was  a 
churchman  who  believed  originally  that  a  man  must 
be  born  again,  from  above,  to  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God.  He  therefore  insisted  that  all  who  sought  ad- 
mission to  the  Church  and  its  sacraments  should  have 
and  relate  a  personal  experience  of  renewing  grace. 
As  we  have  seen,  the  looser  practice  of  the  Half-Way 
Covenant  had  already  obtained  a  foothold  in  some 
of  the  leading  churches,  when  Episcopacy  appeared 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  31 

on  the  scene.  But  the  great  body  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Congregational  churches  resisted  it.  Stod- 
dard's theory  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  a  saving 
ordinance,  and  that  unregenerate  men  of  reputable 
lives  ought  to  be  admitted  to  it,  aroused  a  storm 
of  opposition.  Strong  men  were  on  both  sides. 
The  time  was  favorable  for  Episcopacy.  It  offered 
to  men  what  the  great  body  of  the  Congregational 
Churches  denied  them.  The  controversy  continued 
until  gradually  these  churches,  wearied  by  the  con- 
flict, yielded  the  ground,  as  an  act  of  self-defence, 
and  as  a  measure  of  peace. 

The  feeling  was  deep.  Discussions  about  church 
order  and  discipline  were  heated.  The  defection  of 
leading  men,  like  Dr.  Cutler  of  Yale,  added  fuel  to 
the  fire.  The  Propagation  Society  instructed  its 
clergy  to  reclaim  dissenters  "with  a  spirit  of  meek- 
ness and  gentleness."  But  some  of  the  dissenters 
refused  to  be  reclaimed.  And  therefore  these  dis- 
putes, and  the  defection  of  prominent  men,  distract- 
ed the  minds  of  the  people,  diverted  them  from  their 
obligations  as  professed  disciples  of  our  Lord,  and 
tended  to  lower  their  spiritual  tone. 

As  some  believed,  all  these  controversies  and  dis- 
turbances, and  the  tendency  to  less  rigorous  disci- , 
pline  in  the  churches,  which  was  gaining  ground, 
were  introducing  "a  grievous  decay  of  piety"  into 
New  England.  Samuel  Mather  wrote  in  1706,  "It 
is  a  time  of  much  degeneracy."  In  1714,  Samuel 
Whitman  of  Farmington  said,  in  his  election  ser- 


32  The  Separates 

mon,  "  'Tis  too  Evident  to  be  denied,  that  Religion 
is  on  the  Wane  among  us.  'Tis  languishing  in  all 
Parts  of  the  Land."  Dr.  Increase  Mather,  who  died 
in  1723,  wrote,  "There  is  a  grievous  decay  of  piety 
in  the  land  and  a  leaving  of  the  first  love,  and  the 
beauties  of  holiness  are  not  to  be  seen  as  they  once 
were.  The  very  interest  of  New  England  seems 
to  be  changed  from  a  religious  to  a  worldly  one." 
In  1730  William  Russel  of  Middletown  said  in  a 
sermon,  preached  before  the  legislature,  "The  Coun- 
try improveth  in  Knowledge  and  Skill  in  Worldly 
business,  but  in  Religious  Knowledge,  doth  it  not 
manifestly  decay?"  In  1725  efforts  were  made  to 
have  the  legislatures  of  the  colonies  call  a  synod  to 
consider  "What  are  the  miscarriages  whereof  we 
have  reason  to  think  the  judgments  of  Heaven 
upon  us  call  us  to  be  more  generally  sensible,  and 
what  may  be  the  most  evangelical  and  effective  ex- 
pedients to  put  a  stop  unto  those  or  like  miscar- 
riages." This  effort  was  opposed  by  the  Episcopal 
clergymen  of  Boston,  with  Dr.  Cutler  in  the  lead, 
and  the  synod  was  never  held.  This  was  a  final 
blow  to  all  hopes  of  remedying  spiritual  evils  by 
the  action  of  civil  authorities.  A  similar  effort  had 
been  made  in  Connecticut  in  17 14.  The  legislature 
recommended  that  a  strict  enquiry  into  the  state  of 
religion  be  made  in  every  parish,  to  find  out,  if  pos- 
sible, "What  are  the  sins  and  evils  that  provoke  the 
just  majesty  of  Heaven  to  walk  contrary  to  us  in 
the  ways  of  His  providence;  that  thereby  all  pos- 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  33 

sible  means  may  be  used  for  our  healing  and  recov- 
ery from  our  degeneracy."  The  picture  is  a  dark 
one.  But  there  is  too  much  reason  to  believe  that 
it  is  not  overdrawn.  Old  church  records  preserve 
melancholy  evidence  that  too  much  cannot  be  said 
of  the  degeneracy  of  those  times.  That  the  heated 
religious  controversy  had  not  a  little  to  do  with 
bringing  such  a  state  to  pass  cannot  be  doubted. 
There  was  not  then  the  breadth  of  mind  to  tolerate 
so  radical  departures  from  the  prevailing  order,  as 
the  introduction  of  other  denominations,  such  as  the 
Baptists,  Quakers,  Methodists  and  Episcopalians. 
It  should  be  said,  however,  that  the  coming  of  other 
denominations  into  New  England  rendered  this  ser- 
vice to  the  Congregational  churches;  it  put  an  end 
to  efforts  to  correct  spiritual  abuses  and  revive  spirit- 
ual life  by  an  appeal  to  the  legislature. 

Another  reason  for  the  declining  spiritual  state 
of  the  churches,  especially  in  Connecticut  previous 
to  the  Great  Awakening,  was  the  relation  in  which 
they  stood  'Co  the  legislature,  which  was  a  sort  of 
standing  ecclesiastical  body  having  in  charge  their 
spiritual  as  well  as  material  interests.  For  ex- 
ample, the  legislature  of  Connecticut,  called  the  Say- 
brook  Synod,  which  drew  up  the  famous  Platform, 
called  the  convention  at  Guilford,  whose  action  was 
framed  into  the  stringent  legislation  of  1742  and 
1743;  gave  permission  to  bodies  of  people  to  be 
constituted  into  churches;  often  took  the  lead  in 
settling  church  troubles,  and  performed  similar  ec- 


34  The  Separates 

clesiastical  functions  which  are  foreign  to  legis- 
lative bodies  to-day.  Besides,  after  1743,  the 
churches  under  the  Saybrook  Platform  were  a  state 
establishment  as  rigorous,  exacting  and  unbending, 
as  that  against  which  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby 
protested. 

This  relation  of  the  churches  to  the  legislatures  of 
the  colonies  is  also  seen  in  certain  political  functions 
to  which  church  membership  was  considered  essen- 
tial. In  Massachusetts,  in  the  early  days  of  the 
colony,  a  man  could  neither  vote  nor  hold  office  un- 
less he  were  a  church  member.  Similar  restrictions 
were  placed  upon  the  right  of  franchise  in  the  New 
Haven  colony  previous  to  its  union  with  the  Con- 
necticut colony  in  1665;  that  is,  certain  civil  privi- 
leges were  connected  with  religious  observances. 
This  was  an  inheritance  from  the  State  churches  of 
Europe.  For  example,  admission  to  the  Lord's 
table  carried  with  it  certain  civil  rights  which  were 
infringed  by  exclusion  from  it.  In  some  cases  men 
qualified  for  civil  office  by  partaking  of  this  sacra- 
ment. Dr.  Ezra  Stiles,  in  his  diary,  tells 
of  one  Mr.  Moulton  of  Newport,  who  was  not 
a  church  member,  but  who  "to  qualify  for  an  office 
had  received  the  sacrament  at  an  Episcopal  church" 
in  Boston.  Therefore,  to  exclude  one  from  the 
Lord's  table  was,  in  some  cases,  regarded  as  a  penal 
offence,  for  which  the  civil  government  inflicted 
punishment  on  the  church  official  who  refused  the 
sacrament.      This,  in  a  measure,  made  the  Church, 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  35 

which  is  the  body  of  Christ,  a  part  of  the  civil  gov- 
ernment, and  was  not  helpful  to  its  spiritual  life. 

New  England  Congregationalism,  at  its  birth,  as 
we  have  seen,  was  a  vigorous  protest  against  such 
secularizing  of  the  Church.       The  Cambridge  Plat- 
form of  1648  was  strong  on  this  point.       The  sev- 
enteenth chapiter  of  that  document  affirms  that  "as 
it  is  unlawful!  for  church  officers  to  meddle  with  the 
sword  of  the  Magistrate,  so  it  is  unlawfull  for  the 
Magistrate  to  meddle  with  the  proper  work  of  the 
church."        Then  when  -the  Separates,  ninety  years 
after  the  Cambridge  Platform,  protested  against  the 
interference  of  the  civil  authorities  with  the  affairs 
and  discipline  of  the  Church,  they  had  behind  them 
the  opinion  and  practice  of  the  early  New  England 
Congregationalists,     especially     in     Massachusetts. 
There  was  more  of  interference  in  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters   in    Connecticut    than    in    the    Bay    Colony, 
throughout  the  eighteenth  century.       Consequently 
the  Separate  movement  was  stronger  and  more  pro- 
nounced in  the  former,  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Saybrook  Platform,  which  was  framed  to  express  an 
authoritative  control  and  supervision  in  the  disci- 
pline of  the  church,  which  are  repugnant  to  the  spirit 
of  Congregationalism.       Taking  the  view  of  church 
order  and  discipline  that  they  did,  the  Separates 
pursued  the  only  course  open  before  them.         As 
time  went  on  changes  took  place.       Legislative  su- 
pervision in  ecclesiastical  maltters  assumed  less  and 
less  pronounced   forms,   and   slowly  died  out;     so 


36  The  Separates 

that  before  the  Revolution  this  reason  for  the  Sepa- 
ate  movement  had  practically  ceased.  The  religious 
limitations  put  upon  civil  rights  and  franchise  came 
to  be  things  of  a  remote  past.  Men  were  eligible 
to  office  irrespective  of  their  church  relations. 

But  with  these  changes  came  others  also  of  a 
more  spiritual  nature,  as  we  have  seen.  The  bars 
which  led  into  the  church  were  let  down,  and  often 
little  or  no  restriction  was  put  upon  entering  into  its 
fellowship.  The  Boston  Synod  of  1662  had  de- 
cided that  persons  baptized  in  infancy,  "understand- 
ing the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  publicly  professing 
their  assent  thereto;  not  scandalous  in  life,  and  sol- 
emnly covenanting  before  the  church,  wherein  they 
give  themselves  and  their  children  to  the  Lord,  and 
subject  themselves  to  the  government  of  Christ  in 
the  church,"  might  have  their  children  baptized,  even 
though  they  themselves  were  avowedly  unregener- 
ate.  This  practice  in  many  churches  soon  grew  in- 
to the  admission  of  such  unregenerate  persons  to  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  was  letting 
down  the  last  bar,  and  added  its  share  to  the  spirit- 
ual degeneracy,  which,  we  have  seen,  came  upon 
the  churches  before  the  great  Revival,  and  in  not  a 
few  cases  continued  after  it.  That  is,  some  of  the 
churches,  which  the  Fathers  of  New  England 
planted  as  a  protest  against  such  loose  practices, 
came  to  occupy  the  very  ground  against  which  they 
had  been  planted  as  a  protest.  As  early  as  1657  it 
had  been  maintained,  in  Connecticut,  that  "parishes 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  37 

in  England,  consenting  to  and  continuing  meetings 
to  worship  God  were  true  churches ;  and  that  mem- 
bers of  those  parishes,  coming  into  New  England, 
had  a  right  to  all  church  privileges  though  they  made 
no  profession  of  faith  and  holiness  upon  their 
hearts."*  From  that  date  on  this  view  persistently 
pushed  its  way  for  fifty  years,  knocking  at  the  door 
of  the  churches  for  admission,  till  the  doors  were 
flung  wide  open.  Tracy  says,  "The  desire  to  enjoy 
the  credit  and  advantages  of  church-membership, 
aided  by  Mr.  Stoddard's  influence,  carried  the  day 
at  Northampton,  and  the  practice  soon  spread  ex- 
tensively in  other  parts  of  New  England."  Add 
to  this  state  of  things  a  state  establishment,  such  as 
existed  in  Connecticut,  under  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form, and  we  have  the  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical 
conditions  which  the  Separatists  at  Scrooby  and 
Gainsborough  found  confronting  them  in  the  first 
decade  of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  would  be 
strange  if  in  the  eighteenth  century,  as  in  the  seven- 
teenth, there  were  found  none  to  protest  against  the 
same  evils,  and  come  out  from  them. 

The  tendency  of  the  conditions  which  we  have 
considered,  was  to  destroy  all  spiritual  life.  Men 
came  to  regard  conversion  as  not  essential,  and  join- 
ing the  church  as  a  saving  act.  They  believed  thalt 
they  were  to  be  saved  by  their  own  good  works,  rath- 
er than  through  faith  in  the  merits  of  a  crucified  Re- 
deemer.     Preparation  for  the  kingdom  of  God,  with 

♦Trumbull's  Hist.,  Conn.,  Vol.  I,  p.  251. 


38  The  Separates 

most  churches,  was  a  matter  of  correct  external  con- 
duct, rather  than  of  believing  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  difference  between  the  Church  and  the 
world  rapidly  disappeared.  Until  .Edwards  came 
upon  the  scene  and  preached  his  famous  sermons  on 
justification  by  faith,  the  trend  was  downward,  in 
spite  of  every  effort  to  arrest  it.  The  degeneracy, 
which  had  come  upon  the  churches  before  the  Great 
Awakening,  kept  on  after  it.  Governor  Law,  in 
1743,  called  upon  the  people  of  Connecticut  to  con- 
fess their  sins,  which,  he  said,  were  "the  great  neg- 
lect and  contempt  of  the  gospel  and  the  ministry 
thereof,  and  the  prevailing  of  a  spirit  of  disorder 
and  all  other  vices  which  prevail  among 
us."  This  was  not  the  only  voice  raised  in  lamen- 
tation over  the  spiritual  conditions  following  the 
Great  Awakening.  When  it  is  remembered  that 
Governor  Law's  words  were  spoken  concerning  the 
prevalence  of  sins  subsequent  to  the  Revival,  we 
shall  see  how  deep-seated  were  the  evils  which  had 
crept  into  the  churches  before  it,  and  how  strong 
was  their  hold  upon  them.  Prof.  Walker  says, 
"The  half  century  following  the  Great  Awakening 
was    a    period    of    spiritual    deadness."  It    was 

against  the  Church  as  a  state  organization,  and 
against  the  prevailing  loose  methods  of  church  or- 
der and  discipline,  that  the  Separates  protested. 
Many  of  them  were  fruits  of  the  Revival.  Others 
were  professed  disciples,  who  had  received  new  im- 
pulses and  quickening.      Neither  class  could  consent 


Their  Rise  and  Cause  39 

to  relapse  into  the  cold  formalism  which  seemed  to 
them  to  destroy  the  life  of  the  churches.  The  only 
way  open  to  them  was  the  way  out,  and  they  took  it 


II 

THEIR    FINAL    SEPARATION 

We  should  naturally  expect  so  wide  and  deep  a 
religious  movement  as  the  Great  Awakening,  to  af- 
fect favorably  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  churches, 
and  that  they  would  all  be  deeply  engaged  in  it. 
But  the  contrary  was  too  largely  true.  Among  the 
Episcopalians,  Dr.  Cutler,  formerly  rector  of  Yale 
College,  said,  "It  would  be  an  endless  attempt  to  de- 
scribe the  scene  of  confusion  and  disturbance  oc- 
casioned by  him  [Whitefield] ;  the  divisions  of 
families,  neighborhoods  and  towns,  the  contrariety 
of  husbands  and  wives,  the  undutifulness  of  chil- 
dren and  servants,  the  quarrels  among  teachers,  the 
disorders  of  the  night,  the  intermission  of  labor  and 
business  and  husbandry,  and  gathering  the  harvest," 
and  much  more  of  the  same  sort.  Dr.  Cutler  in 
the  same  paper  describes  the  scenes  attendant  upon 
the  awakening  as  "laughing,  yelping,  sprawling, 
fainting."  Of  Gilbert  Tennent  he  had  similar 

things  to  say,  calling  him  "a  monster,  impudent, 
noisy."  He  called  the  preaching  of  this  evangelist, 
"beastly  brayings."  Dr.  Charles  Chauncey,  pastor 
of  the  First  Church  in  Boston,  led  those  in  the  Con- 
gregational churches  of  Massachusetts  who  opposed 
the  revival.  He  published  a  volume  entitled, 
"Seasonable  Thoughts  on  the  State  of  Religion  in 

40 


Their  Final  Separation  41 

New  England,"  in  which  he  undertook  faithfully  to 
point  out  "the  things  of  a  bad  and  dangerous  ten- 
dency in  the  late  and  present  religious  appearance 
in  the  land."  As  early  as  1741  a  fierce  controversy 
broke  out  between  the  "New  Lights"  and  the  "Old." 
Ecclesiastical  and  legal  methods  were  taken  in  Con- 
necticut to  repress  the  revival  methods  which  were 
then  in  use.  But  all  this  opposition  tended  rather 
to  fan  the  flames.  August  11,  1741,  the  Hartford 
Association  voted  that  no  weight  was  to  be  "laid 
upon  those  screechings,  cryings-out,  faintings  and 
convulsions  which  sometimes  attend  ye  terrifying 
Language  of  some  preachers  and  others,  as  evidences 
of,  or  necessary,  to  a  genuine  Conviction  of  Sin, 
humiliation,  and  preparation  for  Christ."  Similar 
action  was  taken  by  other  associations,  and  thus  the 
challenge  was  thrown  down,  anol  the  battle  was  soon 
on  in  all  its  fury.  Of  course  there  were  strong 
men  who  entered  into  the  work  heartily.  Doubt- 
less there  was  some  occasion  for  criticism.  The 
promoters  of  the  Great  Awakening  were  often  in- 
discreet, sometimes  censorious  in  their  judgment  of 
others  who  did  not  reach  their  standard.  White- 
field  was  a  man  of  intense  emotions.  He  awakened 
similar  feelings  in  others.  Because  of  his  alleged 
excesses  the  faculties  of  Harvard  and  Yale  issued 
testimonies  against  him.  The  opposition  spread 
in  Connecticut.  Backus  says,  "A  great  majority 
of  the  ministers  and  rulers  through  the  land  dis- 
liked this  work,  and  exerted  all  their  powers  against 
it." 


42  The  Separates 

November  24,  1741,  a  general  consociation  of 
the  churches  of  the  colony  of  Connecticut  was  con- 
vened at  the  suggestion  of  the  legislature,  and  at  its 
expense,  at  Guilford.  This  body  consisted  of 
"three  ministers  and  three  delegates  from  each  as- 
sociation." Professor  Williston  Walker  says,  "This 
body,  of  which  the  colony  bore  the  expenses,  met 
at  Guilford,  November  24,  1741 ;  and  enjoys  the  dis- 
tinction of  being  the  last  Congregational  Synod  rep- 
resentative of  the  churches  of  a  commonwealth  called 
under  the  auspices  of  the  State."  It  was  con- 
vened to  consider  the  practice,  which  was  spreading, 
much  to  the  alarm  of  the  government  and  the  regu- 
lar churches,  of  itinerating,  or  "going  abroad  and 
preaching  and  administering  the  seals  in  another 
parish  without  consent  of  the  minister  of  the  parish." 
It  was  itinerating  of  this  sort,  which,  as  we  shall 
soon  see,  got  Rev.  Philemon  Robbins  of  Branford 
into  trouble.  To  this  convention,  assembled  at 

Guilford  in  1741,  Rev.  Mr.  Whittlesey  of  Walling- 
ford  proposed  the  question  whether  such  itinerating 
were  disorderly.  It  promptly  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive. At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature,  in  May, 
1742,  this  vote  of  the  Guilford  convention  was 
framed  into  the  following  "Act  for  regulating 
abuses  and  correcting  disorders  in  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs," which  made  it  a  penal  offence  for  one  min- 
ister of  the  Congregational  order,  or  any  layman, 
or  any  foreigner,  to  go  into  the  parish  of  any  clergy- 
man and  preach  without  his  invitation.  The  act 
provided : — 


Their  Final  Separation  43 

That  if  any  ordained  minister,  or  any  other  per- 
son licensed  as  aforesaid,  to  preach,  shall  enter  into 
any  parish  not  immediately  under  his  charge,  and 
shall  there  preach  or  exhort  the  people,  he  shall  be 
denied  and  secluded  the  benefit  of  any  law  of  this 
colony,  made  for  the  support  and  encouragement  of 
the  gospel  ministry,  except  such  ordained  minister, 
or  licensed  person  shall  be  expressly  invited  and  de- 
sired to  enter  into  such  parish,  and  there  to  preach 
and  exhort  the  people,  by  the  settled  minister,  and 
the  major  part  of  the  church  and  society  within  such 
parish ; 

That  if  any  association  of  ministers  shall  under- 
take to  examine  or  license  any  candidate  for  the 
gospel  ministry,  or  assume  to  themselves  the  decision 
of  any  controversy,  or  as  an  association  to  counsel 
and  advise  in  any  affair  that  by  the  platform,  or 
agreement  above  mentioned,  made  at  Saybrook, 
aforesaid,  is  properly  within  the  province  and  juris- 
diction of  any  dther  association,  then  and  in  such 
case  every  member  that  shall  be  present  in  such  as- 
sociation so  licensing,  deciding  or  counseling,  shall 
be  each  and  every  one  of  them,  denied  and  secluded 
the  benefit  of  any  law  in  this  colony,  for  the  support 
and  encouragement  of  the  gospel  ministry; 

That  if  any  minister,  or  ministers,  contrary  to 
the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act,  shall  pre- 
sume to  preach  in  any  parish,  not  under  his  im- 
mediate care  and  charge,  the  minister  of  the  parish 
where  he  shall  so  offend,  or  the  civil  authority,  or 
any  of  the  committee  of  said  parish,  shall  give  in- 
formation thereof,  in  writing,  under  their  hands,  to 
the  clerk  of  the  parish  or  society  where  such  offend- 
ing minister  doth  belong,  which  clerk  shall  receive 
such  information,  and  lodge  and  keep  the  same  on 


44  The  Separates 

file,  in  his  office,  and  no  assistant  or  justice  of  the 
peace,  in  this  colony,  shall  sign  any  warrant  for  the 
collecting  any  minister's  rate,  without  first  receiv- 
ing a  certificate  from  the  clerk  of  the  society,  or  par- 
ish, where  such  rate  is  to  be  collected,  that  no  such 
information  as  is  above  mentioned,  hath  been  re- 
ceived by  him,  or  lodged  in  his  office; 

That  if  any  person  whatsoever,  that  is  not  a  set- 
tled and  ordained  minister,  shall  go  into  any  parish, 
without  the  express  desire  and  invitation  of  the  set- 
tled minister  of  such  parish,  if  any  there  be,  and  the 
major  part  of  the  church,  or  if  there  be  no  such  set- 
tled minister,  without  the  express  desire  of  the 
church  or  congregation  within  such  parish,  and  pub- 
licly preach  and  exhort  the  people,  shall,  for  every 
such  offence,  upon  complaint  made  thereof  to  any  as- 
sistant or  justice  of  the  peace,  be  bound  to  his  peace- 
able and  good  behavior,  until  the  next  county  court 
in  that  county  where  the  offence  shall  be  committed, 
by  said  assistant  or  justice  of  the  peace,  in  the  penal 
sum  of  one  hundred  pounds  lawful  money,  that  he 
or  they  will  not  again  offend  in  the  like  kind;  and 
said  county  court  may,  if  they  see  meet,  further  bind 
the  said  person  or  persons,  offending  as  aforesaid, 
to  ftiheir  peaceable  behaviour,  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  said  court; 

That  if  any  foreigner  or  stranger,  that  is  not  an 
inhabitant  of  this  colony,  including  as  well  such  per- 
sons as  have  no  ecclesiastical  character,  or  license  to 
preach,  as  such  as  have  received  ordination  or  li- 
cense to  preach,  by  any  association  or  presbytery, 
shall  presume  to  preach,  teach,  or  publicly  exhort, 
in  any  town  or  society  within  this  colony,  without 
the  desire  and  license  of  the  settled  minister,  and  the 
major  part  of  the  church  of  such  town  or  society,  or 


Their  Final  Separation  45 

at  the  call  and  desire  of  the  church  and  inhabitants 
of  such  town  or  society,  provided  that  it  so  happen 
that  there  is  no  settled  minister  there,  that  every 
such  preacher,  teacher,  or  exhorter,  shall  be  sent,  as 
a  vagrant  person,  by  warrant  from  any  one  assist- 
ant or  justice  of  the  peace  from  constable  to  con- 
stable, out  of  the  bounds  of  the  colony. 

This  extraordinary  legislation  had  its  origin,  in 
part,  at  least,  in  the  New  Haven  Consociation,  as  ap- 
pears from  instructions  given  to  their  delegates, 
whom  they  sent  to  the  Guilford  council.  The  sug- 
gestions to  the  consociation  came  from  Rev.  Samuel 
Whittlesey  of  Wallingford,  who  had  a  grievance, 
and  a  point  to  gain.  Further,  the  association  of 
New  Haven,  which  met  at  Wallingford,  September 
28,  1742,  voted  its  unanimous  thanks  to  be  communi- 
cated to  the  legislature  to  be  convened  at  New 
Haven,  October  14,  1742,  for  having  passed  the  act 
just  quoted,  in  May  of  the  same  year.  The  vote 
reads  as  follows  : — 

To  the  Hon.  General  Assembly,  etc.,  convened  at 
New  Haven,  October  14,  1742. — May  it  please  this 
honorable  assembly  to  permit  us,  the  Association  of 
the  county  of  New  Haven,  regularly  convened  in  the 
first  society  of  Wallingford,  September  28,  1742,  to 
lay  before  you  our  grateful  sense  of  the  goodness  of 
the  General  Assembly  in  May  last,  in  so  caring  for 
our  religious  interests,  and  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tion; and  our  just  apprehensions  of  their  wisdom, 
in  making  the  statute,  entitled,  An  act  for  regulating 
abuses,  and  correcting  disorders,  in  ecclesiastical  af- 
fairs;   and  pray  that  it  may  be  continued  in  force. 


46  The  Separates 

All  this  points  to  the  New  Haven  Association, 
and  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Whittlesey  as  the  origin  of 
the  remarkable  act  just  quoted. 

This  act  held  against  exhorters,  lay  preachers, 
evangelists,  and  all  who  separated  themselves  from 
the  established  order,  and  practically  abolished  re- 
ligious liberty  in  Connecticut.  It  all  sounds  very 
strange  to  modern  ears.  It  did  not  leave  a  loop- 
hole. It  put  a  strong  fortress  around  the  estab- 
lished order.  But  one  act  more  needed  to  be  taken 
to  destroy  all  religious  liberty  in  the  colony.  And 
that  was  taken  in  May,  1743.  Trumbull  well  says, 
"The  law  was  an  outrage  to  every  principle  of  jus- 
tice, and  to  the  most  inherent  and  valuable  rights  of 
the  subject.  It  was  a  palpable  contradiction,  and 
gross  violation  of  the  Connecticut  bill  of  rights." 
Baptists  and  Episcopalians  were  accorded  privileges 
which  were  denied  to  Congregationalists,  who  dis- 
sented from  the  established  order  of  the  Say  brook 
Platform,  and  were  constituted  under  the  Cambridge 
Platform  into  separate  churches.  Trumbull  says, 
"Even  in  Connecticut,  the  Episcopalians  were  al- 
lowed to  preach  and  collect  hearers,  and  erect 
churches,  in  any  of  the  ecclesiastical  societies,  in  op- 
position to  the  established  ministers  and  churches. 
The  Baptists  were  allowed  to  do  the  same.  The 
law  was  therefore  partial,  inconsistent,  and  highly 
persecuting."  As  we  have  seen,  the  law  of  1742  was 
an  enactment  of  the  votes  passed  at  Guilford  the  pre- 
vious November.       It  was  therefore,  says  Trumbull, 


Their  Final  Separation  47 

an  expression  of  the  strong  "opposition  of  heart 
which  there  was  in  the  Arminians  and  old  lights,  to 
the  work  of  God,  and  to  the  zealous  and  faithful 
promoters  of  it."  Those  who,  for  doctrinal  or 
other  reasons,  separated  themselves  to  form  Separate 
churches  were  made  to  feel  the  grip  of  the  law.  In 
May,  1708,  a  statute  of  religious  toleration  had 
been  passed  by  the  legislature,  which  was  re- 
affirmed by  that  body  in  October  of  the  same  year, 
when  the  Saybrook  Platform  of  September  was 
given  legal  authority.  By  this  statute,  those  whose 
sober  consciences  led  them  to  dissent  from  that 
Platform,  could  do  so  without  being  held  to  an- 
swer therefor.  In  May,  1743,  this  act  of  May, 
1708,  was  repealed.  The  legislature  coupled  this 
repeal  with  a  distinct  promise  to  those  who  were  not 
Congregationalists ;  but  those  who,  while  preferring 
the  Congregational  faith  and  polity,  wished  to  with- 
draw from  the  established  system,  of  which  the  Say- 
brook  Platform  was  the  basis,  and  organize  under 
the  more  Congregational  Cambridge  Platform,  were 
now  forbidden  all  right  to  do  so.  Thenceforward 
the  Saybrook  Platform  was  made  legally  binding 
upon  all  Congregationalists  at  least.  Connecticut 
was  now  under  as  rigorous  an  ecclesiastical  establish- 
menlt  as  that  from  which  the  Fathers  had  fled  in 
England.  This  continued  until  the  act  of  1743  was 
repealed  in  1784,  and  liberty  of  conscience  was 
granted  to  Christians  of  every  name. 

A  few  cases  of  the  rigor  with  which  the  law  was 


48  The  Separates 

enforced  will  suffice  to  show,  on  the  one  hand,  how 
bitter  was  the  opposition  which  the  Great  Revival 
awakened  in  the  established  churches,  and  on  the 
other  hand  how  sorely  those  were  made  to  suffer 
who,  for  conscience'  sake,  withdrew  from  these 
churches.  The  church  in  Salisbury  was  organized 
in  1744,  upon  the  Cambridge  Platform,  in  defiance 
of  the  vote  of  the  legislature.  Rev.  Mr.  Leaven- 
worth of  Waterbury,  Rev.  Mr.  Humphrey  of  Derby, 
and  Rev.  Mr.  Todd  of  Northbury,  were  among  those 
who  assisted  at  Mr.  Jonathan  Lee's  ordination,  as 
the  first  pastor  of  that  church.  For  this  offence 
these  three  men  were  suspended  by  the  association 
to  which  they  belonged.  Mr.  Benjamin  Pomeroy 
of  Hebron  was  brought  before  the  Assembly  because 
he  said  that  the  late  laws  of  the  colony  were  calcu- 
lated to  encourage  persecution,  and  to  lead  men  to 
break  their  covenants,  while  the  law  to  prevent  min- 
isters from  going  into  other  towns  to  preach  was 
without  reason,  and  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God. 
He  was  tried,  and  the  Assembly  sentenced  him  to 
forfeit  his  lawful  salary  until  the  next  session  of 
the  legislature,  and  to  pay  the  costs  of  his  prosecu- 
tion, £32,  19s.,  8d.,  and  give  bonds  in  fifty  pounds 
for  his  good  and  peaceable  behavior  meanwhile. 
The  case  of  Rev.  Philemon  Robbins  of  Bran- 
ford  is  another  of  like  character.  The  Baptists  of 
Wallingford  invited  him  to  preach  for  them,  as  there 
was  a  deep  religious  interest  among  them.  He 
agreed  to  go.        A  remonstrance  was  sent  him  by 


Their  Final  Separation  49 

forty-two  members  of  Mr.  Whittlesey's  church. 
Two  ministers  of  neighboring  churches  wrote  ad- 
vising him  not  to  go.  He  had  promised  to  go. 
The  case  seemed  urgent.  He  went.  He  was  tried 
by  the  consociation,  and  found  guilty.  He  was 
deposed  from  the  ministry.  Various  charges  were 
brought  against  him,  showing  how  deep  was  the 
feeling  among  the  established  churches  of  the  colony 
against  the  state  of  things  brought  about  by  the 
revival.  The  vote  expelling  Mr.  Robbins  from  the 
ministry  was  as  follows : — 

This  consociation  do  now  upon  the  whole  judge 
and  determine  the  said  Mr.  Robbins  unworthy  the 
ministerial  character  and  Christian  communion; 
and  accordingly  do,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and  the  pow- 
ers invested  in  this  consociation  by  the  ecclesiastical 
constitution  of  this  government,  depose  the  said 
Mr.  Philemon  Robbins  from  his  ministerial  office 
and  ministerial  and  pastoral  relation  to  the  first 
church  in  said  Branford,  and  debar  and  suspend 
him  from  communion  in  any  of  the  churches  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  church,  however,  stood  by  their  pastor,  and 
he  continued  to  minister  to  them. 

The  attempt  to  enforce  the  Saybrook  Platform 
was  vigorous  and  determined,  but  was  not  always 
successful.  Every  possible  measure  was  taken 

both  by  the  legislature,  and  by  the  leaders  among 
the  clergy,  the  former  usually  following  the  lead  of 
the  latter,  to  suppress  zealous,  experimental  preach- 


50  The  Separates 

ers  and  people.  Ministers  were  put  out  of  associa- 
tions and  consociations;  and  men  and  women  were 
excluded  from  communion  for  the  offence  of  going 
(to  hear  these  preachers.  Such  facts  show  how 

violent  was  the  spirit  of  opposition  aroused  by  the 
Great  Awakening.  Further  action  of  the  legislature 
in  October,  1743,  was  taken  in  obedience  to  a  purpose 
to  exclude  all  obnoxious  preachers  from  abroad  from 
the  colony.  It  was  intended  to  prevent  men  like 
Whitefield  and  Tennent  from  coming  into  Connecti- 
cut. It  provided  that,  if  any  foreigner  or  stranger, 
not  an  inhabitant  of  the  colony,  should  return  into  it, 
after  he  had  been  transported  out  of  it  by  order  of 
the  courts,  and  should  preach  or  teach  or  exhort  in 
any  town  or  society  within  its  borders,  it  should  be 
the  duty  of  the  proper  officer  of  the  law  to  cause  the 
offender  to  be  arrested  and  brought  before  him,  and, 
in  case  of  his  guilt,  to  bind  him  "in  the  penal  sum 
of  one  hundred  pounds  lawful  money,  to  his  peace- 
able and  good  behavior,  and  that  he  will  not  offend 
again  in  like  manner."  Then  the  offender  should 
be  summarily  ejected  from  the  colony,  and  be  re- 
quired to  "pay  down  the  cost  of  his  transportation." 
The  repeal  of  the  act  "for  the  ease  of  such  as 
soberly  dissent"  from  the  Saybrook  Platform,  in 
May,  1743,  left  no  relief  for  dissenters  from  the  es- 
tablished mode  of  worship,  except  upon  application 
to  the  General  Assembly,  which  was  growing  more 
rigorous  in  its  enforcement  of  conformity.  This 
act  of  repeal  gave  liberty  to  sober  dissenters  to  apply 


Their  Final  Separation  51 

for  relief,  and  it  was  promised  that  they  should  be 
heard.  If  they  had  any  characteristics  which  dis- 
tinguished them  from  Presbyterians  or  Congrega- 
tionalists,  they  might  expect  indulgence  upon  taking 
oath,  and  subscribing  to  the  declaration  provided  for 
such  cases;  but  otherwise  none  need  expect  indul- 
gence. Thus  liberty  of  conscience  was  put  within 
the  reach  of  Baptists,  Episcopalians  and  others,  who 
were  thus  relieved  from  taxation  to  support  the  es- 
tablished churches  and  their  ministers.  But  for 
dissenting  Congregationalists  there  was  no  redress. 
The  adoption  of  the  Cambridge  Platform  served 
only  to  distinguish  those  who  adopted  it  as  Congre- 
gationalists, and  liable  to  the  full  penalties  of  the 
law. 

Mr.  John  Owen  of  Groton  was  arrested  for  ut- 
tering hard  speeches  against  the  laws  and  the  offi- 
cers of  the  government,  and  for  advocating  princi- 
ples calculated  to  bring  the  government  into  con- 
tempt. Mr.  Owen  and  Mr.  Pomeroy  were  brought 
before  the  assembly  in  May,  1744.  to  answer  to  the 
charges  made  against  them.  Mr.  Owen  made  some 
slight  concessions  and  was  dismissed  on  paying  the 
cost  of  his  prosecution.  Mr.  Pomeroy,  as  we  have 
seen,  did  not  come  off  so  easily.  These  are  ex- 
amples, which  might  be  considerably  multiplied,  of 
the  strenuous  measures  which  were  "taken  to  sup- 
press the  zealous,  experimental  preachers  and  people, 
both  by  the  legislature  and  the  leaders  among  the 
clergy,"   many  of  whom,   Trumbull  tells   us,   were 


52  The  Separates 

"preachers  of  a  dead,  Gold  morality,  without  any 
distinction  of  it  from  heathen  morality,  by  the  prin- 
ciples of  evangelical  love  and  faith."  Zeal,  ex- 
perimental knowledge  of  religion,  earnestness  in 
preaching,  were  termed  enthusiasm,  and  enthu- 
siasm was  disorderly.  While  the  civil  authorities 
were  rigorously  enforcing  the  laws,  the  clergy  were 
adopting  measures  no  less  severe  in  suspending  mem- 
bers from  their  communion  for  the  sin  of  going  to 
hear  zealous  preachers  like  Whitefield,  Wheelock, 
Pomeroy  and  others.  Nor  did  these  pastors  always 
stop  to  ask  the  churches,  but  in  some  cases  sus- 
pended offending  members  by  their  own  act.  In 
some  cases,  Trumbull  tells  us,  this  suspension  lasted 
ten  or  twelve  years,  till  the  pastors  were  dead  and 
succeeded  by  others.  In  many  instances  consocia- 
tions ordained  men  against  the  opposition  of  a  large 
majority,  not  only  of  (the  church,  but  of  the  legal 
voters,  as  will  be  seen  later.  Not  only  were  mem- 
bers expelled  from  churches,  but  also  earnest,  godly 
ministers  were  put  out  of  associations  because  of 
their  zeal. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  action  of  the 
New  Haven  Association  in  1741  secured  the  calling 
of  the  council  at  Guilford  in  November  of  that  year. 
The  action  of  that  council  resulted  in  the  rigorous 
restrictive  legislation  of  1742,  and  finally,  in  1743, 
in  removing  all  relief  for  dissenters  from  the  estab- 
lished order  who  were  Congregationalists.  The  ac- 
tion of  the  legislature  in  1743  was  taken  with  a  view 


Their  Final  Separation  53 

to  suppress  enthusiasm,  and  was  directly  the  result 
of  action  taken  by  the  General  Association  at  New 
London,  June  15,  1742.  After  recognizing  the 
fact  that  God  had  visited  his  people  and  stirred  up 
great  numbers  to  ask  what  Ithey  must  do  to  be 
saved,  and  expressing  thankfulness  for  this  visita- 
tion, and  after  expressing  the  belief  that  the  enemy 
of  souls  was  very  busy  in  efforts  to  destroy  the 
work  of  God,  the  Association  said: — 

We  think  it  our  duty  to  advise  and  entreat  the 
ministers  and  churches,  of  the  colony,  and  recom- 
mend it  to  the  several  particular  associations,  to 
stand  well  upon  their  guard,  in  such  a  day  as  this, 
that  no  detriment  arise  to  the  interest  of  our  greaJt 
Lord  and  Master,  Jesus  Christ. 

Particularly,  that  no  errors  in  doctrine,  whether 
among  ourselves  or  foreigners,  nor  disorders  in 
practice,  do  get  in  among  us,  or  tares  be  sown 
in  the  Lord's  field. 

That  seasonable  and  due  testimony  be  borne 
against  such  errors  and  irregularities,  as  do  already 
prevail  among  some  persons ;  as  particularly  the  de- 
pending upon  and  following  impulses  and  impres- 
sions made  on  the  mind,  as  though  they  were  im- 
mediate revelations  of  some  truth  or  duty  that  is 
not  revealed  in  the  word  of  God :  Laying  too  much 
weight  on  bodily  agitations,  raptures,  extasies,  vi- 
sions, &c. :  Ministers  disorderly  intruding  into  other 
ministers'  parishes :  Laymen  taking  it  upon  them,  in 
an  unwarrantable  manner,  publicly  to  teach  and  ex- 
hort :  Rash  censuring  and  judging  of  others  :  That 
the  elders  be  careful  to  take  heed  to  themselves  and 
doctrine,  that  they  may  save  themselves,  and  those 


54  The  Separates 

that  hear  them :  That  they  approve  themselves  in  all 
things  as  the  ministers  of  God,  by  honor  and  dis- 
honor, by  good  report  and  evil  report:  That  none 
be  lifted  up  by  applause  to  a  vain  conceit,  nor  any 
be  cast  down  by  any  contempt  thrown  upon  them, 
to  the  neglect  of  their  work :  and  that  they  study 
unity,  love  and  peace  among  themselves. 

And  further,  that  thev  endeavour  to  heal  the  un- 
happy divisions  that  are  already  made  in  some  of 
the  churches,  and  that  the  like  for  the  future  be 
prevented :  That  a  just  deference  be  paid  to  the  laws 
of  the  magistrate  lately  made  to  suppress  disorders : 
That  no  countenance  be  given  to  such  as  trouble  our 
churches,  who  are,  according  to  the  constitution  of 
our  churches,  under  censure,  suspension,  or  depo- 
sition, for  errors  in  doctrine  or  life. 

The  hand  of  Eliphalet  Adams,  pastor  of  the 
church  in  New  London,  was  undoubtedly  in  the  fore- 
going. Davenport  had  branded  him  as  unconverted, 
to  the  great  horror  of  all  who  knew  him  and  his 
godly  life.  A  large  separation  from  his  church  took 
place  the  next  November.  He  was  moderator  of 
the  meeting.  The  action  taken  as  quoted  above 
seems  to  have  been  shaped  by  his  experience  and 
that  of  others  who  had  met  with  the  same  treat- 
ment from  Davenport.  But  whether  his  hand  was  in 
the  document  or  not,  the  sentiment  embodied  in 
it  naturally  fits  what  we  should  expect  him  to  say. 
In  any  case  the  legislature  took  this  action  up  and 
framed  it  into  rigorous  statute  the  following  year. 

It  therefore  appears  that  all  the  opposition  to  the 
Great  Awakening  which  took  shape  in  civil  law, 


Their  Final  Separation  55 

originated  with  the  established  churches.  This  can 
be  accounted  for  only  by  the  fact  that  the  deadening 
effects  of  the  practice  of  the  Half- Way  Covenant 
for  almost  a  century,  still  remained.  Nor  did  the 
revival  put  an  end  to  the  practice,  so  deeply  had  it 
become  rooted  in  the  very  life  of  the  churches. 
Rather,  it  limited  the  effect  of  the  revival.  In 
churches  which  seemed  to  share  most  deeply  in  the 
Awakening,  the  Half-Way  Covenant  continued 
with  unabated  vigor  after  the  revival  ceased.  If, 
during  the  period  of  awakened  sensibilities,  the 
practice  was  suspended,  it  reasserted  itself,  when  the 
period  was  at  an  end,  in  not  a  few  churches,  with 
its  old-time  vigor.  Mr.  Edwards'  church  in  North- 
ampton was  at  the  center  of  the  religious  interest. 
Yet  in  1749,  when  he  preached  his  great  sermon 
on  the  proper  qualifications  for  church  membership, 
so  firmly  imbedded  in  the  belief  and  practice  of  the 
church  were  the  views  which  Stoddard  had  advo- 
cated, that  this  revolutionary  sermon  cost  Edwards 
his  pastorate  in  1750.  Most  of  the  churches  of  the 
council,  his  own  church,  and  the  whole  town,  were 
against  him.  Stoddard  had  advocated  "the  Right 
of  Visible  Saints  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  they 
be  destitute  of  a  Saving  Work  of  God's  Spirit  on 
tbheir  Hearts."  Mr.  Edwards,  in  his  sermon,  de- 
fended the  negative  of  the  question,  "Whether,  ac- 
cording to  the  rules  of  Christ,  any  ought  to  be 
admitted  to  the  communion  and  privileges  of  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  church  of  Christ,   in  complete 


56  The  Separates 

standing,  but  such  as  are  in  profession,  and  in  the 
eye  of  the  church's  Christian  judgment,  godly  or 
gracious  persons  ?"  The  significant  thing  about  the 
conclusion  of  this  controversy  is,  that  the  council 
was  constituted  of  nine  of  the  principal  churches 
in  the  neighborhood, — Enfield,  Sheffield,  Sutton, 
Reading,  Springfield  First,  Hatfield,  Sunderland, 
Hadley  First,  Pelham  and  Cold  Spring.  There 
was  but  a  minority  to  vote  for  Mr.  Edwards  and 
his  views.  The  Great  Awakening  had  not  been  deep 
and  lasting  enough  in  its  effects  to  eradicate  the 
deleterious  practice  of  the  Half -Way  Covenant.  To 
do  that  a  strong  and  evangelical  pastor,  defending 
the  truth  as  taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  labor- 
ing for  the  purity  of  the  church,  had  to  be  sacrificed. 
After  the  immediate  results  of  the  revival  the  re- 
action was  alarming.  So  tremendous  was  the  sweep 
of  the  decline  that,  in  1758,  Rev.  Benjamin  Throop 
in  an  election  sermon  said,  "There  is  an  awful 
Decay  of  Religion  .  .  .  the  fear  of  God  is 
amazingly  cast  off  this  day.  While  some  are  dis- 
puting the  Personality  of  the  Godhead,  and  deny- 
ing the  Lord  that  bought  them;  others  are  ridi- 
culing the  important  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  and 
casting  contempt  upon  the  efficacious  Merits  of  a 
Glorious  Redeemer;  many  are  exploding  the  Doc- 
trine of  free  and  Sovereign  Grace  and  exalting 
human  Nature  under  all  its  Depravity  to  a  situation 
equal  to  all  its  necessities;  thereby  perverting  the 
Designs  of  the  Gospel,  and  frustrating,  as  far  as  may 


Their  Final  Separation  57 

be,  the  Means  of  our  Salvation."  The  sweep  of  the 
pendulum  was  backward,  and  it  had  not  yet  reached 
the  farthest  point.  The  religious  decay  which  had 
preceded  the  revival  of  1740  was  again  in  full  proc- 
ess, and  the  Half -Way  Covenant  was  yet  to  work 
greater  harm  to  the  churches. 

Such  was  the  spiritual  state  of  the  churches 
throughout  Connecticut  and  New  England.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  that  schism  which  marked  the 
earlier  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  remains 
in  the  Unitarian  body.  It  was  against  these  condi- 
tions, and  all  that  went  with  them,  that  the  Separate 
movement  was  a  protest.  It  was  attended,  as  will  be 
seen  later,  by  many  false  estimates  of  what  consti- 
tutes a  truly  religious  character,  what  is  evidence  of 
being  a  child  of  God,  by  much  ill-advised  and  ill- 
tempered  zeal,  and  by  an  unwarrantable  censorious- 
ness  of  spirit.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  foregoing 
narrative  shows  that  there  was  not  a  little  in  the 
condition  and  practice  of  the  established  churches 
to  awaken  the  deep  solicitude  of  earnest  souls.  The 
movement  may  have  been  ill-advised,  but  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  there  appeared  to  be  good  reasons 
for  it.  Their  alleged  grounds  for  separation  uni- 
formly were:  "That  the  standing  churches  were 
not  true  churches,  but  of  anti-Christ ;  that  hypocrisy 
was  encouraged  in  them,  and  they  could  have  no 
communion  with  hypocrites.  They  maintained  that 
the  church  should  be  pure,  undefiled  with  hypocrisy, 
and  that  no  hypocrite  could  abide  with  them.    Upon 


58  The  Separates 

this  principle  the  Separate  churches  set  out,"  says 
Trumbull.  Cerltiaiinly  no  criticism  of  their  action 
can  be  made  at  this  point. 

Several  statements  of  reasons  for  the  movement 
serve  to  shed  light  upon  it;  especially  as  they  were 
made  by  leaders  in  the  movement.  Solomon  Paine, 
of  Canterbury,  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  a  "Short  View 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
the  difference  between  it  and  the  church  established 
in  Connecticut."  In  this  pamphlet  he  attempted  to 
show  that  a  church  established  by  law  is  not  a 
church  of  Christ.  He  also  gave  a  reason  for  sepa- 
ration which  is  in  accord  with  the  views  generally 
held  by  the  Separates.  "The  cause,"  he  says,  "of 
a  just  separation  of  the  saints  from  their  fellow 
men  in  their  worship,  is  not  that  there  are  hypo- 
crites in  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  nor  that  some 
fall  into  scandalous  sins  in  the  Church,  nor  because 
the  minister  is  flat,  formal,  or  even  saith  he  is  a 
minister  of  Christ,  and  is  not,  and  doth  lie;  but  it 
is  'their  being  yoked  together,  or  incorporated  into 
a  corrupt  constitution,  under  the -government  of  an- 
other supreme  head  than  Christ,  and  governed  by 
the  precepts  of  men,  put  into  the  hands  of  unbe- 
lievers, which  will  not  purge  out  any  of  the  corrupt 
fruit,  but  naturally  bears  it  and  nourishes  it,  and 
denies  the  power  of  godliness,  both  in  the  govern- 
ing and  gracious  effects  of  it."  He  went  on  to  say 
that  he  knew  the  established  worship  to  be  as  idola- 
trous as  that  of  Nebuchadnezzer's  golden  image, 


Their  Final  Separation  59 

and  that  he  could  no  more  support  it  than  Israel 
could  Jereboam's  priests  which  he  had  made  for  his 
calves.  Here  is  expressed  the  prevailing  spirit  of 
the  Separates  in  their  withdrawal  from  the  regular 
churches. 

This  may  be  further  illustrated  by  reasons 
given  by  other  individuals.  One  man  in  the  North 
Parish  of  New  London  said,  "God's  having  left 
[the  regular  church]  was  a  sufficient  warrant  for 
his  leaving;"  another  said,  "That  there  was  no 
more  of  God  in  the  congregation  than  'there  was  a 
black  dance;"  another  said  "That  his  dissatisfaction 
was  our  selling  the  Gospel  for  £400  a  year,  and  his 
darkness  in  attending  this  meeting,  that  'the  Spirit 
told  him  he  should  have  light  upon  his  withdraw- 
ing, and  so  he  found  it."  A  man  in  North  Ston- 
ington,  where  the  Separate  church  and  the  old 
church  were  happily  reunited  under  Rev.  Joseph 
Ayer,  in  1827,  gave,  as  his  reason  for  separation, 
that  the  pastor  discountenanced  "public  exhorting  on 
the  Sabbath  at  the  meeting-house;"  that  he  checked 
the  outcries  of  the  people  in  time  of  divine  service; 
that  the  pastor  admitted  to  the  pulpit  persons  whom 
he  looked  upon  as  not  experienced  men.  A  woman 
in  Canterbury  gave  as  her  reasons  for  separation, 
that  Mr.  Cogswell  did  not  visit  enough,  and  added 
sixty-two  Scripture  texts  as  explaining  her  action, 
among  which  were  Solomon's  Song  1  :  7,  8  and  Acts 
xiii-xv.  Just  how  these  were  related  to  her  action 
it  is  difficult  at  this  distance  to  see.     But  these  are 


60  The  Separates 

examples  of  the  reasons  given  for  this  movement. 
Probably  the  most  effective  was  their  well  ground- 
ed aversion  to  an  establishment  in  which  the  affairs 
of  the  Church  were  "governed  by  the  precepts  of 
men,  put  into  the  hands  of  unbelievers,"  as  stated 
by  Solomon  Paine.  Certainly,  looking  at  things 
from  their  point  of  view,  no  other  course  seemed 
open  to  them  but  the  one  they  took. 

A  Separatist,  or,  a  strict  Congregational,  Church 
was  gathered  at  Preston,  March  17,  1747.  Six  per- 
sons signed  the  covenant,  and  took  the  vows  of 
God  upon  them.  The  following  statement  of  their 
reasons  for  taking  this  step  is  quoted  from  their 
records : 

This  Church  is  Caled  ye  Separate  Church  be- 
cause ye  first  Planted ;  in  this :  Came  ovt  from  ye 
old  Church  in  ye  Town.  which  caled  it  Self  Partly 
Congregational  &  Partly  Presbyterial ;  who  sub- 
mitted to  ye  Laws  of  ye  Government  to  Settle  ar- 
ticles of  faith;  to  govern  ye  Gathering  of  ye  Church 
&  Settlement  &  Support  of  its  ministers  build- 
ing of  meeting  houses,  Preaching  Exhorting  &c. : 
as  also  ye  Church  Refuses  ye  members  should  Im- 
prove there  Gifts  In  Preaching  &  Exhorting 
Publicly  &c  as  also  were  offended  at  ye  Powerful 
opperations  of  ye  Spirit  of  God,  &  did  not  make 
Saving  Convertion  y*  necessary  terms  of  Com- 
munion :  but  admitted  unbelievers  to  Communion : 
also  made  half  members:  Baptized  there  children, 
&c. 

This  is  a  clear  and  explicit  statement  of  the  rea- 
sons for  the  separate  movement  in  Preston.     There 


Their  Final  Separation  61 

were  three :  State  control  of  the  Church,  refusal 
to  let  the  members  exercise  their  gifts  in  preach- 
ing and  exhorting,  and  laxness  in  the  requirements 
for  admission  to  the  church.  This  statement  applies 
not  only  to  the  case  of  the  Preston  Separate  Church, 
but  to  all  the  others. 

The  following,  also  quoted  from  the  records  of 
the  Preston  Church,  recites,  six  years  later,  the  local 
causes  which  led  to  its  organization: 

"It  pleased  ye  Lord  in  ye  yeare  1740  to  visit  this 
Land  with  the  Remarkable  outpouring  of  his  holy 
Spirit:  and  ye  Light  break  forth  like  ye  morning: 
and  ye  Greate  Declentions  and  Corruptions  of  y« 
Churches  of  Newengland  was  Descovered,  and 
when  it  could  not  be  Healed  for  Both  ye  true  Dis- 
cipline, Doctrine  and  Messenger  were  Rejected  we 
bare  our  testimony  to  them  and  came  ovt  from  them 
to  Carry  on  ye  Worship  of  God  according  to  our 
Knowledg  of  the  will  of  God :  and  Gathered  into 
Church  order :  and  ye  Lord  has  Graciously  owned 
us  ever  Sence :  which  is  now  Six  yeares :  at  our 
first  Covenanting  there  was  Six :  and  now  there  is 
neare  Seventy  members. 

This  record  was  entered  on  the  books  of  the 
Church  in  1753-4,  by  Paul  Park,  who  was  minister 
of  the  church  from  1747  till  his  death  in  1802,  at  the 
age  of  eighty-two;  a  period  of  fifty-five  years.  The 
records  of  the  doings  of  this  body  are  prefaced  as 
follows : 

A  Record  of  ye  Discipline  of  a  Congregational 
Church  of  Christ  Tn  Preston;  which  ye  Lord  hewed 
out  of  ye  Mountains  of  wickedness  and  Bound  to- 


62  The  Separates 

gether  in  ye  Bands  of  Christian  Love,  &  Called  forth 
to  witness  for  his  Grace  and  truth:  By  Declaring 
what  God  had  Don  for  there  souls,  and  visibly  Cov- 
enanting and  walking  together  in  all  External  or- 
dinances of  ye  Gospill. 

These  quotations  from  the  records  of  this  Sepa- 
rate Church  in  Preston  are  instructive.  They  give 
us  a  hint  as  to  their  views  of  church  order  and  dis- 
cipline, which  were  quite  at  variance  with  those 
which  prevailed  among  the  established  churches. 
They  evidently  believed,  as  did  the  Separates  of 
England,  a  hundred  and  forty  years  before,  that 
the  affairs  of  a  local  church  should  be  managed 
from  within  itself.  As  the  established  churches  did 
not  believe,  nor  practice  so,  these  people  felt  that 
there  was  no  fellowship  for  them  within  these 
churches,  and  withdrew.  Their  views  of  the  proper 
qualifications  for  church  membership  were  so  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  those  which  were  commonly 
held  by  the  regular  churches  that  separation  seemed 
to  them  to  be  the  only  alternative.  The  separation 
therefore  took  place  in  several  of  the  towns  of  New 
London  and  Windham  Counties,  to  which  it  was 
chiefly  confined.  In  Hartford  County  something  of 
the  same  spirit  existed  in  Windsor,  Enfield,  Suf- 
field  and  Middletown.  Trumbull  says,  "Thus  dif- 
ferent were  the  principles,  views,  and  feelings  of  the 
two  sorts  of  Christians.  The  one  were  humble, 
docile,  and  willing  to  come  to  the  light  that  their 
works  might  manifest  that  they  were  wrought  in 


Their  Final  Separation  63 

God.  They,  like  the  primitive  Christians,  continued 
stedfast  in  the  apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread  together."  These  were 
the  established  churches.  Whether  Trumbull's  pic- 
ture is  true  to  life  some  might  easily  doubt  after 
reading  all  the  facts.  Of  the  Separatists  he  says, 
"The  others  were  haughty,  bitter,  censorious :  dis- 
affected to  their  teachers;  disowned  the  churches 
with  which  they  had  covenanted;  and  treated  their 
brethren  rather  as  worshippers  of  Satan  than  as 
followers  of  Christ." 

Without  doubt  there  was  more  or  less  of  the 
spirit,  which  justified  these  words  of  Trumbull,  at 
work  to  produce  the  Separate  movement.  There 
was  in  it  more  or  less  misguided  zeal  and  enthu- 
siasm, not  tempered  by  discretion.  Nevertheless, 
the  abuses  against  which  the  Separates  protested 
actually  existed.  Their  complaint  that  unconverted 
people  were  admitted  to  the  churches  was  well  taken. 
Probably  they  were  not  without  reason  for  feeling 
that  the  pulpit  of  the  regular  churches  lacked  power. 
At  any  rate,  these  people  withdrew  because  they  saw 
these  evils  in  the  churches,  saw  no  other  way  to 
escape  them,  and  in  so  doing  followed  the  example 
of  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby,  who  could  no  longer 
tolerate  the  abuses  of  the  English  church.  Like  the 
latter,  the  Separates  of  New  England  believed  that 
Christ  was  the  head  and  sole  source  of  authority 
of  the  Church,  and  therefore  that  the  right  of  self- 
government  was  vested  in  it.       The  only  possible 


64  The  Separates 

issue  of  such  a  radical  difference  could  be  either  a 
retreat  on  the  part  of  one  party  or  the  other,  or  a 
separation.     The  latter  was  the  result. 


Ill 

THEIR   DOCTRINES 

When  a  body  of  people,  following  deep-seated 
religious  convictions,  withdraw  from  those  with 
whom  they  had  heretofore  been  in  fellowship,  we 
naturally  enquire  as  to  their  tenets.  In  general,  it 
may  be  said  at  this  point,  to  quote  Mr.  Trumbull, 
that  "Exclusive  of  some  peculiarities,  more  especial- 
ly relative  to  the  constitutions  of  the  churches  and 
church  discipline,  they  [the  Separates]  maintained 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chism and  Confession  of  Faith."  The  same  author, 
who  cannot  be  suspected  of  a  leaning  towards 
them,  says,  that,  with  respect  to  their  alleged  errors, 
he  does  not  find  that  they  preached  or  propagated 
them,  and  they  never  taught  contrary  to  sound 
doctrine,  and  were  evangelical  on  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity.  "The  Separatists  in 
Canterbury,"  says  Rev.  Robert1  C.  Learned,  "re- 
tained the  same  forms  of  profession  and  cove- 
nant which  had  been  in  use  in  the  original  church, 
and  which  were  drawn  in  the  sternest  phrase  of 
Calvanism,  and  this  was  likewise  adopted  by  the 
'Separate  Church  in  Windham.'  "  Their  errors  were 
only  such  as  they  are  liable  to  who  let  zeal  outrun 
discretion  and  judgment.  The  Separates  did  not 
come  out  from  the  original  churches  on  account 

6s 


66  The  Separates 

of  doctrinal  differences  but  chiefly  on  account  of  dif- 
ferent views  of  administration. 

The  doctrines  held  by  the  Separates  may  be 
learned  from  two  sources.  The  one  is  what  their 
enemies  say;  the  other  is  their  own  statements. 
Let  us  first  enquire  what  the  churches  from  which 
they  came  out,  say  about  their  views.  They  were 
called  errors.  But  they  were  the  beliefs  of  these 
people.  At  this  distance,  when  they  can  be  judged 
dispassionately,  they  will  not  all  of  them  be  branded 
as  errors. 

In  1744  the  Winham  County  Association  appoint- 
ed a  committee  to  enquire  into  the  case  of  the 
Separates.  As  a  result  of  their  investigations 

they  addressed  a  letter,  December  1 1  of  that  year, 
"to  the  people  of  the  several  Societies  in  Said 
County."  In  this  address  it  was  set  forth  that 
"There  has  been  of  late,  in  a  few  years  past,  a  very 
great  and  merciful  revival  of  religion  in  most  of 
the  towns  and  societies  in  this  county,  as  well  as 
in  many  other  parts  of  the  land."  They  also  ex- 
pressed the  belief  that  the  Prince  of  Darkness  had 
made  this  awakening  an  occasion  to  get  in  some  of 
his  work,  in  order  to  destroy  men's  souls.  In  this 
work  the  ways  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  said,  were 
imitated  as  nearly  as  possible  "both  by  setting  on 
imaginary  frights  and  terrors,  in  some  instances,  on 
men's  minds,  somewhat  resembling  the  convictions  of 
the  blessed  Spirit  and  awakenings  of  the  conscience 
for  sin,  and  also  filling  their  minds  with  flashes  of 


Their  Doctrines  67 

joy  and  false  comforts,  resembling  somewhat,  in  a 
general  way,  the  consolations  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  address  goes  on  to  say  that  this  so-called  work 
of  the  evil  one  was  not  always  plainly  distinguished 
from  the  real  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  there 
"was  some  times  a  mixture  of  such  things  with  the 
true  experiences  of  the  people  of  God."  Owing  to 
violent  and  injudicious  opposition  of  some  who  saw 
bad  things  in  it,  there  were  those  who  rashly  con- 
cluded that  the  whole  was  of  the  devil ;  "while  others, 
on  the  other  hand,  looking  on  the  good,  and  being 
persuaded  that  it  was  a  day  of  God's  wonderful 
power  and  gracious  visitation,  suddenly  and  weakly 
concluded  that  there  was  little  wrong  in  the  ap- 
pearances, beside  mere  human  weaknesses  and  un- 
avoidable infirmity."  "In  the  progress  of  the 
work,"  says  Tracy,  "they  believed  Satan  had  suc- 
ceeded in  instigating  some  to  provoke  persecution, 
by  which  they  were  hardened  more  and  more  in 
their  errors."  Many  were  drawn  away  after  them, 
partly  out  of  pity  for  them,  and  by  the  wrong 
conclusion  that  their  sufferings  were  an  evidence 
that  they  were  right,  and  partly  out  of  opposition  to 
others  whom  they  thought  to  be  carnal  and  ungodly 
men.  The  address  goes  on  to  state  what,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Windham  County  Association,  were 
some  of  the  fundamental  errors  of  tlhe  Separates : 

1.  "That  it  is  the  will  of  God  to  have  a  pure 
church  on  earth,  in  this  sense,  that  all  the  converted 
should  be  separated  from  the  uncon verted. " 


68  The  Separates 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  Half-Way  Covenant 
this  was  doubtless  an  error.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see 
what  other  view  could  be  held  to-day  by  any  evan- 
gelical Congregational  church.  The  error  in  this 
case  seems  to  attach  to  the  plaintiff  rather  than  to 
the  defendant. 

2.  '"'That  saints  certainly  know  one  another, 
and  know  who  are  Christ's  true  ministers,  by  their 
own  inward  feelings,  or  a  communion  between 
them  in  the  inward  actings  of  their  own  souls." 

There  may  have  been  some  extravagance  con- 
nected with  this  belief  that  die  power  to  discern  re- 
generate persons  was  given  to  the  church  for  its  per- 
petual guidance.  But  if  the  principle  involved  is 
wrong,  then  John  must  have  been  in  error  when 
he  wrote  his  first  epistle;  and  Peter's  conduct  was 
unaccountable  when,  on  his  miraculous  escape  from 
prison,  he  made  his  way  directly  to  the  house  where 
he  knew  that  the  disciples  were  gathered  in  prayer 
for  him;  and  Christ's  words  were  deceiving  when 
he  said  of  his  disciples,  they  "have  known  surely 
that  I  came  out  from  thee,"  "they  are  not  of  the 
world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world." 

3.  "That  no  other  call  is  necessary  to  a  person 
undertaking  to  preach  the  Gospel,  but  his  being  a 
true  Christian,  and  having  an  inward  motion  of  the 
Spirit,  or  persuasion  in  his  own  mind,  that  it  is  the 
will  of  God  that  he  should  preach  and  perform 
ministerial  acts;  the  consequence  of  which  is,  that 
there    is    no    standing    instituted    ministry    in    the 


Their  Doctrines  69 

Christian  church,  which  may  be  known  by  the  visi- 
ble laws  of  Christ's  Kingdom." 

This  was  in  flat  contradiction  of  the  view  held  by 
the  established  churches,  and  in  open  defiance  of 
the  acts  of  the  legislature  of  Connecticut,  which 
allowed  none  but  regularly  constituted  ministers  to 
preach  and  perform  the  regular  functions  of  the 
gospel  ministry.  As  Dr.  Walker  says,  this  was  a 
convenient  view,  for  they  had  among  them  few  per- 
sons of  superior  cultivation.  Naturally  they  fell 
under  the  guidance  of  illiterate  persons,  chosen  from 
among  themselves,  whom  they  ordained  as  minis- 
ters of  the  Word.  This  became  one  great  source  of 
their  weakness,  and  very  materially  limited  the 
sphere  of  their  influence. 

In  some  particulars  their  view  was  correct.  It 
is  essential  that  a  preacher  be  "a  true  Christian;" 
that  he  have  "an  inward  motion  of  the  Spirit  or 
persuasion,"  ithat  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  he  should 
preach,  and  much  more  that  is  not  specified.  If  by 
denying  that  there  is  in  the  Church  a  standing,  in- 
stituted ministry,  they  meant  a  clerical  order,  such 
as  is  found  in  prelatical  churches,  their  view  was 
certainly  not  uncongregational. 

4.  "That  God  disowns  the  ministry  and  the 
churches  in  this  land,  and  the  ordinances  as  ad- 
ministered by  them." 

5.  "That  at  such  meetings  of  lay  preaching  and 
exhorting  they  have  more  of  the  presence  of  God 
than  in  his  ordinances,  and  under  the  ministration 


jo  The  Separates 

of  the  present  ministry,  and  the  administration  of 
the  ordinances  in  these  churches." 

These  last  items  are  matters  of  opinion.  The 
Separates  had  a  right  to  theirs,  for  holding  which 
they  were  not  wholly  without  reason.  In  proof  of 
these  errors  the  case  of  Mr.  Elisha  Paine  was  cited 
in  the  address.  He  was  a  man  "of  much  superior 
ability  to  the  others."  It  was  alleged  that  he  lacked 
clear  ideas  of  the  Trinity,  and  sometimes  used  lan- 
guage tinctured  with  Sabellianism.  On  the  con- 
trary, Trumbull  says,  "With  respect  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  they  preached  nothing,  I  believe, 
contrary  to  sound  doctrine."  In  the  matter  of  ad- 
mitting members  they  were  more  strict  than  the 
standing  churches.  It  was  also  alleged,  in  the  ad- 
dress of  the  Windham  County  Association,  that 
Mr.  Paine  said  that  "it  was  made  manifest  to  him 
that  Christ  was  about  to  have  a  pure  church,  and 
that  he  had  not  done  his  duty  in  time  past  in  pro- 
moting separations  and  divisions  among  the  people, 
and  that  for  time  to  come  he  should  endeavor  to 
promote  and  encourage  separations;  and  that  like- 
wise Christ's  own  ministers  would  have  their 
churches  rent  from  them  by  reason  of  their  not 
doing  their  duty  in  that  respect."  By  this  he  said 
that  he  meant  the  separation  of  "those  who  were 
converted  from  the  unconverted  in  the  church." 

Certainly  the  contention  that  unconverted  persons 
and  hypocrites  ought  not  to  be  in  the  church  would 
strike    the    average    Congregational    mind    of    the 


Their  Doctrines  yi 

present  as  quite  within  the  bounds  of  reason.  In 
State  establishments,  where  all  who  have  been  bap- 
tized, and  live  orderly  lives,  are  considered  eligible 
to  church  membership,  the  opposite  view  might  pre- 
vail. The  fact  that  it  did  prevail  widely  in  Connec- 
ticut, shows  how  strong  was  the  trend  toward  the 
very  form  of  church  order  from  which  the  Pil- 
grims and  the  Puritans  revolted. 

This  is  the  state  of  the  case  against  the  Separates 
as  presented  by  tlhe  plaintiff.  If  these  are  the  most 
considerable  errors  which  were  to  be  found,  there 
is  nothing  which  would  be  taken  seriously  to-day. 
At  least,  one  holding  them  would  not  be  likely  to 
come  under  ecclesiastical  censure.  As  the  Windham 
Association  entered  upon  the  enquiry  with  no  pur- 
pose to  screen  the  Separates,  we  may  believe  that 
their  statement  is  the  strongest  which  could  possibly 
be  made.  It  is  then  difficult,  at  this  distance,  to  see 
why  the  enginery  of  the  law,  and  the  ecclesiastical 
machinery  of  the  established  churches  of  Connec- 
ticut, should  have  been  brought  to  bear  against  the 
Separates  as  apostates  from  a  pure  faith.  There  can 
be  but  one  explanation,  namely,  that  the  charges  of 
the  Separates  against  the  established  churches  had 
too  much  truth  in  them.  The  simple  fact  is  that 
these  people,  in  many  respects,  occupied  advanced 
ground,  which,  at  a  later  date,  the  churches  which 
sat  in  judgment  upon  them  came  to  hold. 

The  foregoing  is  the  plea  of  the  Windham  County 
churches,  which  felt  the  movement  directly.     The 


72  The  Separates 

pastors  of  these  churches  were  so  deeply  concerned 
that  they  called  a  convention,  or  consociation,  in 
Scotland,  January  13,  1747,  to  take  these  matters 
into  consideration,  and  to  hear  the  report  of  a  com- 
mittee appointed  to  enquire  into  these  "divisions 
and  errors."  They  summoned  Mr.  Elisha  Paine, 
Mr.  Solomon  Paine,  Deacon  Marsh,  and  Mr. 
Thomas  Stevens,  leading  Separates  in  Canterbury, 
Mansfield  and  Plainfield,  to  appear  before  them 
and  give  their  reasons  for  withdrawing  from  the 
regular  churches.  Whether  the  summons  was  an- 
swered by  the  presence  of  the  gentlemen  named  we 
do  not  know.  But  the  consociation  met  and  rec- 
ommended the  churches  of  the  county  to  keep  the 
second  Tuesday  in  the  following  February  as  a  day 
of  solemn  fasting  and  prayer,  "to  seek  the  Divine 
direction  in  that  day  of  division  and  error,  and  to 
supplicate  the  pouring  out  of  God's  holy  spirit  upon 
the  people."  They  then  adjourned  to  the  second 
Tuesday  in  February,  the  eleventh,  when  they  met 
again.  The  facts  in  the  case,  the  confession  of 
faith,  and  the  Covenant  of  the  Separates  were  con- 
sidered. They  decided  that  the  confession  of  faith 
was,  in  general,  orthodox,  but  deficient  in  respect  to 
the  offices,  work  and  mediation  of  Christ,  the  nature 
of  saving  faith,  the  institutions  and  ordinances  of 
the  gospel,  and  the  worship  of  God  in  church  as- 
semblies. The  consociation  also  found  that,  in  all 
cases  where  the  Separates  had  deviated  from  the 
confessions  of  faith  of  the  regular  churches,  they 


Their  Doctrines  jt, 

had  marred  the  sense,  or  perverted  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  so  that  they  had  opened  the  door  to  the 
entrance  of  "Moravian,  Antinomian,  Anabaptistical, 
and  Quakerish  errors  :  and  that  under  a  pretence  of 
congregational  discipline,  they  had  set  up  as  abso- 
lute an  independency  as  ever  was  heard  of  in  the 
church."  The  consociation  was  in  error  here,  as 
the  reader  will  see,  when  he  reads  the  statement  of 
the  Separates  themselves,  whose  church  polity  was 
more  nearly  in  accord  with  modern  Congregational- 
ism than  the  Presbyterial  plan  of  the  established 
churches  of  Connecticut  could  possibly  be.  The 
consociation  also  remarked  upon  the  ignorance  of 
the  teachers  of  the  Separates,  their  need  to  be  taught 
the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God,  and  their 
utter  unfitness  to  expound  the  Scriptures,  and  act 
as  officers  and  teachers  in  the  church.  In  most 
cases  this  contention  was  just.  But  the  force  of  it 
was  very  much  diminished  by  the  successful  efforts 
of  the  regular  churches  to  put  a  stop  to  the  schools 
which  the  Separates  endeavored  to  establish  for  the 
purpose  of  raising  up  an  educated  ministry. 

The  consociation  then  proceeded  to  pass  a  reso- 
lution to  the  following  effect: — First  they  declared 
their  own  adherence  to  the  Westminster  Confession 
of  Faith,  and  that  there  was  no  just  ground  of 
separation  from  the  regular  churches.  Then  they 
resolved  that  the  Separates  had  not  taken  gospel 
measures  to  convince  the  churches  of  their  alleged 
errors,  before  separating  from  them;  that  the  sepa- 


74  The  Separates 

ration  had  not  been  effected  in  a  way  to  promote 
peace;  that  they  had  manifestly  departed  from  the 
true  faith,  and  from  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel; 
that  their  separation  was  unchristian,  and  divisive, 
rending  the  visible  body  of  Christ;  that  the  regular 
churches  ought  to  look  upon  those  who  continue 
in  these  errors,  as  scandalous  and  disorderly,  and 
therefore  to  withdraw  communion  from  them. 
This  would  not,  it  was  added,  preclude  any  church 
from  taking  measures  to  reclaim  particular  persons, 
if  it  should  be  judged  a  duty.  But  the  Separate 
churches  were  practically  disfellowshiped. 

Before  listening  to  the  statement  of  the  Sepa- 
rates themselves,  we  will  examine  the  state  of  the 
case  between  the  regular  churches  and  those  who 
were  disaffected,  as  it  is  stated  by  the  following 
resolutions  passed  by  the  General  Association  in 
1744: 

Whereas,  at  all  times,  but  more  especially  at  this 
time,  sundry  persons  unjustly  disaffected  to,  and 
prejudiced  against  either  the  minister  or  church,  or 
both,  to  which  they  belong,  under  the  influence  of 
such  disaffection,  withdraw  from  their  worship  and 
communion;  and  although  as  yet  they  are  under  no 
censure,  yet  we  think  that  other  ministers  and 
churches  receiving  such  disaffected  persons  to  privi- 
leges, serves  to  encourage  and  strengthen  them,  in 
their  unjust  disaffection  and  unreasonable  separa- 
tion; which,  to  prevent,  it  may  be  proper  that  the 
minister,  by  himself,  or  in  conjunction  with  some  of 
the  brethren  of  such  church,  from  which  there  is 
.such  a  separation,  to  write  to  the  minister  or  minis- 


Their  Doctrines  75 

ters  of  such  churches,  to  which  the  aforesaid  dis- 
affected members  repair  for  privileges,  and  in  a 
brotherly  and  kind  manner,  represent  to  them  the 
true  state  of  such  members  and  churches,  desiring 
them  to  discountenance  and  prevent  such  separa- 
tions. And  in  case  a  minister,  or  ministers,  so  in- 
formed or  applied  to,  shall  still  receive  and  encour- 
age such  persons,  that  then  the  complainant  lay  the 
matter  before  the  association  to  which  that  minister 
doth  belong,  and  that  the  association  deal  with  him 
as  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  case  doth 
require.  And  inasmuch  as  we  judge  that  such  sepa- 
rations, countenanced  as  above,  are  the  source  and 
origin  of  much  difficulty,  and  a  practice  big  with 
many  mischiefs,  we  earnestly  recommend  the  affair 
to  the  particular  associations,  that  in  this,  or  some 
other  way,  they  provide  against  so  great  an  evil,  that 
it  may  be,  by  the  divine  blessing,  soon  and  easily 
cured.  And  that  ministers  should  be  very  cautious 
of  entertaining  such  disaffected  persons,  and  of 
hearing  and  countenancing  their  reports  of  or 
against  their  ministers  and  churches. 

That  the  entering  of  a  minister,  or  of  a  number 
of  ministers,  into  any  established  parish  in  this  gov- 
ernment, and  there  gathering  a  church  of  members, 
that  had  before  disorderly  separated  themselves  from 
the  church  to  which  they  belonged,  and  some  of  them 
actually  under  ecclesiastical  censure,  is  just  matter 
of  offence. 

That  requiring  persons  particularly  to  promise  to 
walk  in  communion  with  that  church  of  Christ  into 
which  they  seek  admission,  conscientiously  attending 
and  upholding  the  public  worship  of  God  in  that 
place,  until  regularly  dismissed  therefrom,  is  not  a 
hard  or  unreasonable  term  of  communion. 


y6  The  Separates 

That  it  is  not  advisable  to  admit  a  person  to 
communion,  who  refuseth  to  submit  to  the  above 
mentioned  terms,  but  insists  on  liberty  to  go  to  other 
places,  when  and  where  he  pleaseth,  to  attend  public 
worship  and  ordinances. 

In  the  foregoing  vote  the  General  Association 
took  direct  issue  with  the  Separatists,  who  held  that 
they  had  a  right  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  their  own  consciences,  and  at  such  times 
and  in  such  places  as  they  pleased.  They  therefore 
ignored  all  acts,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  which  inter- 
fered with  this  liberty.  This,  they  claimed,  was  the 
ground  on  which  the  Pilgrims  acted,  and  the  only 
one  on  which  their  separation  from  the  Church  of 
England  could  be  justified.  But  the  laws  were 
against  them,  and  were  executed,  as  we  shall  see, 
with  all  their  severity.  The  foregoing  plan  of  dis- 
cipline adopted  by  the  General  Association  was  in- 
tended to  force  the  Separatists  back  into  conform- 
ity. But  it  failed.  These  people  may  have  been 
wrong  in  regarding  too  lightly  their  covenant  obli- 
gations, and  wrong  in  their  disorderly  method  of 
separation;  but  otherwise  they  were  as  right,  in 
their  position  and  action,  as  were  the  Separatists  of 
England.  And  if  the  established  church  of  Con- 
necticut was  as  persistent  and  severe  as  the  Es- 
tablished Church  of  England  in  refusing  the  rights 
of  conscience  to  dissenters,  the  Separatists  of  Con- 
necticut pursued  the  only  course  open  to  sober 
consciences.     It  is  not  a  question  whether  they  were 


Their  Doctrines  77 

actuated  by  misguided  enthusiasm  and  mistaken 
zeal,  but  what  did  their  consciences  compel  them  to 
do  ?  Foolish  they  may  have  been,  but  when  we  come 
to  consider  the  treatment  which  they  received,  we 
shall  see  that  self-respecting  consciences  had  no 
other  alternative. 

We  now  come  to  consider  the  defendant's  state- 
ment of  the  case.  October  9,  1745,  a  Separate 
church  was  organized  at  Mansfield.  Its  confession 
of  faith  may  be  taken  as  the  Separatists'  own  declar- 
ation of  their  views  upon  the  questions  in  debate. 
We  quote  the  articles  bearing  upon  the  points  at 
issue.  It  will  be  noticed  in  reading  them  that  the 
doctrinal  basis  does  not  differ  materially  from  that 
of  other  Congregational  churches  of  those  times : — 

Article  15.  We  believe  we  are  of  that  number 
who  were  elected  of  God  to  eternal  life  and  that 
Christ  did  live  on  earth,  die  and  rise  again  for  us 
in  particular;  that  he  doth  now,  in  virtue  of  his  own 
merits  and  satisfaction,  make  intercession  to  God 
for  us,  and  that  we  are  now  justified  in  the  sight 
of  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  and  shall  be  owned 
by  him  at  the  great  and  general  judgment; — which 
God  hath  made  us  to  believe  by  sending,  according 
to  his  promise  (John  16)  the  Holy  Ghost  into  our 
souls,  who  hath  made  particular  application  of  the 
above  articles. 

18.  That  all  doubting  in  a  believer  is  sinful,  be- 
ing contrary  to  the  command  of  God,  and  hurtful  to 
the  soul,  and  an  hindrance  to  the  performance  of 
duty. 

20.  We  believe,  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture 
and  by  our  own  experience,  that  true  believers,  by 


7&  The  Separates 

virtue  of  their  union  to  Christ  by  faith  have  com- 
munion with  God,  and  by  the  same  faith  are  in 
Christ  united  to  one  another;  which  is  the  unity  of 
the  Spirit,  whereby  they  are  made  partakers  of  each 
other's  gifts  and  graces,  without  which  union  there 
can  be  no  communion  with  God,  nor  with  the 
saints. 

21.  That  whoever  presumes  to  administer  or 
partake  of  the  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace  with- 
out saving  faith,  are  guilty  of  sacrilege,  and  are  in 
danger  of  sealing  their  own  damnation. 

This  took  direct  issue  with  the  practices  of  the 
established  churches  under  the  Half- Way  Covenant, 
by  which  persons  who  could  lay  no  claim  to  experi- 
ence of  renewing  and  sanctifying  grace  were  admit- 
ted at  first  to  the  privilege  of  baptism  for  their 
children,  and  afterwards  to  the  privileges  of  full 
church  membership.  It  is  difficult  to  say  that  the 
contention  of  the  Separates  was  wrong.  The  es- 
tablished churches  held  that  all  should  be  admitted 
to  the  church  as  believers  who  were  not  "proved 
to  be  otherwise."  The  Separates  contended  that  the 
doors  of  the  church  should  be  kept  carefully  closed 
against  such  as  could  not  give  satisfying  evidence 
of  their  piety.  And  they  based  this  contention  upon 
their  belief  that  saints  have  certain  knowledge  of 
each  others'  piety.  Their  position  was  impregnable. 
The  separation  did  not  take  place,  as  we  have  said, 
on  account  of  doctrinal  differences.  The  Separates 
were  as  Calvinistic  in  their  beliefs  as  the  established 
church.       The  whole  difficulty  lay  in  their  decided 


Their  Doctrines  79 

and  just  protest  against  admitting  to  church  privi- 
leges unconverted  men — a  matter  about  which  there 
would  be  no  controversy  now.  The  consensus  of 
evangelical  Christian  opinion  now  would  unani- 
mously support  the  contention  of  the  Separates. 
The  Half-Way  Covenant  was  the  ploughshare 
which  was  driven  through  the  churches  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  and  started  the  cleavage  which 
divided  the  churches  of  the  nineteenth  century.  If 
their  movement  had  been  supported  and  balanced 
by  education  and  intelligence  of  the  same  high 
order  as  the  purpose  which  actuated  them,  it  would 
have  been  only  second  in  importance  and  far-reach- 
ing results  to  the  movement  of  the  Separatists  of 
1608  at  Scrooby.  It  would  have  done  much  to  pre- 
vent the  discussions  which  ended  the  eighteenth 
century  and  resulted  in  the  Unitarian  defection  in 
(the  nineteenth. 

The  difference  in  the  matter  of  church  order  and 
discipline  between  the  Separates  and  the  estab- 
lished churches  was  far  wider  and  more  radical.  As 
we  have  seen  by  quotations  from  the  records  of  the 
Preston  Separate  Church,  the  Separates  regarded 
the  regular  churches  as  "partly  Congregational 
and  partly  Presbyterial."  They  themselves  claimed 
to  be  strictly  Congregational,  insisting  that  each 
church  had  the  right  to  regulate  its  own  internal 
affairs;  settle  its  own  articles  of  faith;  choose,  call 
and  settle  its  own  minister;  build  its  own  house 
of  worship,  without  interference  of  the  civil  author- 


80  The  Separates 

ities.  The  twenty-second  article  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  adopted  by  the  Separate  Church  of  Mans- 
field had  several  sections  which  related  to  church 
order  and  discipline,  viz. : 

That  true  believers,  and  they  only,  have  a  right 
to  give  up  their  children  to  God  in  baptism. 

That  at  all  times  the  doors  of  the  church  should 
be  carefully  kept  against  such  as  cannot  give  a 
satisfying  evidence  of  the  work  of  God  upon  their 
souls,  whereby  they  are  united  to  Christ. 

That  a  number  of  true  believers,  being  thus  es- 
sentially and  visibly  united  together,  have  power  to 
choose  and  ordain  such  officers  as  Christ  has  ap- 
pointed in  his  church,  such  as  bishops,  elders  and 
deacons;  and  by  the  same  power  to  depose  such 
officers  as  evidently  appear  to  walk  contrary  to  the 
Gospel,  or  fall  into  any  heresy.  Yet  we  believe,  in 
such  cases,  it  is  convenient  to  take  advice  of  neigh- 
boring churches  of  the  same  constitution. 

We  believe  that  all  gifts  and  graces  that  are  be- 
stowed upon  any  of  the  members,  are  to  be  improved 
by  them  for  the  good  of  the  whole;  in  order  to 
which  there  ought  to  be  such  a  gospel  freedom 
whereby  the  church  may  know  where  every  particu- 
lar gift  is,  that  it  may  be  improved  in  its  proper 
place  and  to  its  right  end,  for  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  good  of  the  church. 

That  every  brother  that  is  qualified  by  God  for  the 
same  has  a  right  to  preach  according  to  the  meas- 
ure of  faith,  and  that  the  essential  qualification 
for  preaching  is  wrought  by  the  Spirit  of  God; 
and  that  the  knowledge  of  tongues  and  liberal 
sciences  are  not  absolutely  necessary;  yet  they  are 
convenient,  and  will  doubtless  be  profitable  if  rightly 


Their  Doctrines  81 

used;  but  if  brought  in  to  supply  the  want  of  the 
Spirit  of  God,  they  prove  a  snare  to  those  that  use 
them  and  all  that  follow  them. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  find  an  association  of 
evangelical  ministers  to-day  who  would  take  issue 
with  this  statement  of  doctrine.  They  believed  that 
it  was  the  will  of  God  to  have  a  pure  Church.  This 
is  not  saying,  by  any  means,  that  the  Separatists 
reached  their  ideal.  But  their  ideal  was  high,  noble 
and  correct. 

The  church  in  Canterbury  took  its  stand  upon  the 
Cambridge  Platform  and  dissented  from  the  Say- 
brook  Platform  as  follows : — 

From  the  discipline  set  up  and  expressed  therein 
— it  appearing  to  us  to  be  contrary  to  the  authority 
of  Chrislt  set  up  in  his  Word,  which  we  look  upon  as 
complete  and  none  can  pretend  to  amend  or  add  to  it 
without  casting  open  contempt  on  Christ  and  his 
Holy  Spirit.  The  said  Saybrook  Platform  takes 
the  power  from  the  brethren  of  the  Church  and  puts 
an  absolute  and  decisive  power  in  the  Consociation 
contrary  to  Christ,  and  also  has  created  an  Associa- 
tion not  warranted  by  Christ  in  his  word.  These 
things  the  church  looks  upon  to  be  anti-Christian, 
unscriptural,  and  leading  to  papal  usurpation  over 
the  consciences  of  God's  people.  Also,  there  being 
no  half  members  in  Christ,  this  church  covenants 
to  admit  none  to  own  the  covenant  that  will  not 
come  to  full  communion,  it  being  inconsistent  with 
the  covenant,  nor  will  we  admit  any  to  baptism  but 
true  believers  and  their  seed. 

This  declaration  of  the  Canterbury  church  is  a 
clear  and  explicit  statement  of  principles  common  to 


82  The  Separates 

all  the  Separates.  It  put  them  into  open  antago- 
nism to  the  practices  of  the  churches  under  ithe  Say- 
brook  Platform.  Their  Congregationalism  was  of 
the  primitive  order  and  above  challenge.  It  was 
nearly  that  of  Robert  Browne.  Their  doctrine  of 
the  church  and  its  officers  is  Scriptural.  Their 
recognition  of  the  fellowship  of  neighboring 
churches  of  the  same  constitution  in  advisory  coun- 
cils was  sound.  Their  views  of  the  ministry  and  of 
qualifications  for  it,  are  worth  consideration.  They 
were  wide  apart  from  the  established  churches  of 
Connecticut  in  this  matter  of  church  order,  but  were 
in  close  sympathy  with  the  views  which  now  prevail. 
For  example,  Dr.  Dexter  says,  "A  true  church  must 
be  composed  of  those  who  believe  themselves  to  be, 
and  publicly  profess  to  be,  Christians."  This  is 
precisely  the  contention  of  the  Separates  in  the  ar- 
ticles of  faith  quoted  above.  Dr.  Dexter  also  says 
that  "the  right  and  duty  of  choosing  all  necessary  of- 
ficers, of  admitting,  disciplining  and  dismissing 
members,  and  transacting  all  other  appropriate  busi- 
ness of  a  Christian  church,"  are  vested  in  its  mem- 
bership. This  is  precisely  the  ground  taken  by  the 
Separates.  The  same  authority  says  that  while 
every  church  is  independent  of  any  outward  juris- 
diction or  control,  yet  when  difficulties  arise,  or  im- 
portant matters  are  to  be  decided,  as  when  a  pastor 
is  to  be  settled  or  dismissed,  or  a  creed  is  to  be 
adopted,  or  organic  life  is  to  be  commenced,  "it  is 
proper  that  the  advice  of  other  churches  should  be 


Their  Doctrines  83 

sought  and  given  in  council."  These  are  almost 
the  exact  words  used  in  the  Mansfield  articles  of 
faith.  In  the  records  of  the  Preston  Separate 
church  are  many  instances  in  which  a  delegate  was 
sent  with  the  pastor  to  serve  neighboring  churches 
upon  councils  summoned  to  give  advice  in  important 
cases.  Other  comparisons  might  be  made  which 
would  show  the  agreement  of  the  Separates'  views 
of  ecclesiastical  polity  with  those  which  are  held  by 
Congregational ists  now.  They  were  strict  Con- 
gregationalisms, and  were  really  in  advance  of  their 
times,  in  Connecticut,  at  least. 

It  would  not  be  far  wrong  to  say  that  they  were, 
in  many  respects,  the  advance-guard  of  modern 
Congregationalism.  They  certainly  had  something 
to  do  with  bringing  to  an  end  forever  the  connection 
between  church  and  state  in  Connecticut.  They 
flatly  refused  to  be  taxed  to  support  the  established 
order,  and,  as  good  Congregationalists  are  bound  to 
do,  resented  any  intermeddling  with  the  internal  af- 
fairs of  the  local  church,  beyond  the  friendly  and  fra- 
ternal advice  of  sister  churches.  Advice  they  ac- 
cepted and  followed;  authority  they  rejected.  They 
believed  in  the  autonomy  of  the  local  church.  The 
ground  which  they  took  was  that  taken  by  Dr. 
Nathaniel  Emmons,  when  he  declared  that  a  Con- 
gregational church  is  "a  pure  democracy,  which 
places  every  member  of  the  church  upon  a  level,  and 
gives  him  perfect  liberty  with  order,"  and  that  the 
pastor  of   such   a   church   "stands   upon   the   same 


84  The  Separates 

ground  as  the  private  brother."  They  insisted,  and 
rightly,  that  a  Congregational  church  is  self-gov- 
erned, and,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Emmons,  that 
"One  church  has  as  much  power  as  another."  So 
the  Separate  movement  was  a  distinct  and  radical 
break  with  Connecticut  Consociationism,  which  Dr. 
Emmons  asserted  "leads  to  Presbyterianism,"  and 
that  "to  Episcopacy,"  and  that  "to  Roman  Cathol- 
icism, and  Roman  Catholicism  is  an  ultimate  fact." 
Emmons  being  of  Connecticut  stock,  having  been 
born  in  East  Haddam  in  1745,  and  having  graduated 
from  Yale  College  twenty-two  years  later,  knew  the 
workings  of  Connecticut  Consociationism  and  its 
trend.  The  Separates  believed  with  modern  Con- 
gregationalists  in  "the  absolute  democracy  of  a  Con- 
gregational church."  The  statement  of  the  Preston 
Separate  church,  giving  reasons  for  their  withdrawal 
from  the  regular  church,  which  is  quoted  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter,  proves  this.  Their  claim  to  the  title, 
"Strict  Congregationalists,"  cannot  be  disputed. 

The  Separates,  as  a  body,  held  to  the  doctrine  of 
infant  baptism,  with  tenacity.  But  on  this  question 
they  were  divided,  many  holding  to  the  Baptist  faith 
in  this  regard,  and  ultimately  leaving  the  former 
and  joining  the  latter.  In   1753  the  church  in 

Preston  v/ithdrew  fellowship  from  Samuel  Palmer, 
who  had  joined  during  the  previous  year,  because  he 
declared  his  conviction  that  "infant  baptism  was  not 
of  God."  The  church  pursued  the  usual  course  of 
discipline,  admonished  him  of  his  error,  and  tried  in 


Their  Doctrines  85 

vain  to  win  him  back.  Later,  after  various  confer- 
ences, he  seems  to  have  been  restored  to  fellowship; 
for  in  1757  his  name  appears  among  those  who  were 
dismissed  for  differences  in  doctrine.  But  he  never 
joined  the  Baptists,  because  he  opposed  close  com- 
munion. 

In  1752  Zerviah  Lamb  withdrew  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  Separates  because  she  "declared  her 
belief  that  infant  baptism  or  sprinkling  was  nothing 
but  a  tradition  of  men."  In  1755  Daniel  Whipple, 
who  had  joined  the  Preston  church  in  1751,  "asked 
to  be  dismissed  from  the  church  because  it  held  to 
the  doctrine  and  practice  of  infant  baptism."  Sam- 
uel Claslie  and  his  wife  held  to  "what  they  called 
believer's  baptism,  viz. :  that  baptism  was  not 
baptism  if  administered  before  faith,  and  that  no  re- 
ligious covenant  obligation  is  any  obligation,  or 
ought  to  be  looked  upon  as  binding,  if  made  before 
conversion  and  faith;  which  principles  ye  church 
looked  upon  as  corrupt."  Failing  to  reconcile  these 
differences,  the  church,  in  1757,  "by  a  testimonial  let- 
ter to  all  the  disaffected  members,"  dissolved  its 
covenant  relations  with  them.  There  were  nine 
who  departed  and  embraced  "ye  Baptist  principles  of 
baptism."  The  testimonial  addressed  to  these  peo- 
ple, who  were  separating  from  the  Separates  of 
Preston,  ends  as  follows : — 

But  now  Brethren  and  Sisters,  inasmuch  as  you 
are  gone  out  from  us  as  aforesd  we  cannot  give  you 
fellowship,  nor  dare  we  bid  you  Godspeed   (as  to 


86  The  Separates 

the  cause  of  your  going) ,  yet  inasmuch  as  you  plead 
conscience,  and  we  would  by  no  means  pretend  to 
govern  any  man's  conscience,  for  God  and  his  word 
only  are  Lord  of  ye  conscience;  therefore  we  leave 
you  to  stand  or  fall  to  your  own  master.  And  we 
look  upon  ourselves  as  discharged  from  our  special 
walttch  over  you,  and  the  visible  covenant  relations 
dissolved  between  us  and  you. 

This  transaction  sheds  light  not  only  upon  the 
methods  of  discipline  of  the  Separates,  but  also  their 
loyalty  to  the  tenets  which  they  held  to  be  essential. 
For  in  spite  of  the  defection,  the  church  still  con- 
sistently followed  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  and 
adhered  to  the  method  of  sprinkling  as  a  Scriptural 
method  of  administering  the  rite.  Three  hundred 
and  sixty-two  children  were  baptized  in  the  pale  of 
the  Preston  Separate  Church.  This  may  be  taken 
as  an  example  of  the  views  and  practice  of  the  whole 
Separate  body. 

The  Separates  and  Baptists  agreed  on  all  points 
of  doctrine,  worship  and  discipline,  save  the  mode 
and  subjects  of  Baptism.  For  a  time  this  was  no 
bar  to  fellowship.  But  the  agreement  was  of  short 
duration.  The  Baptists  were  unwilling  to  com- 
mune with  those  whom  they  considered  unbaptized. 
The  Separates,  who  held  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
as  the  foundation  of  their  faith,  would  not  rebaptize 
those  who  were  sprinkled  in  infancy.  A  council  was 
held  to  reconcile  these  differences.  Certain  agree- 
ments and  concessions  were  made.  But  some  of 
the  churches  refused  to  ratify  the  action  of  their  eld- 


Their  Doctrines  87 

ers,  and  what  bade  fair  to  be  a  harmonious  union 
ended  in  failure.  The  whole  matter  came  up  again 
at  the  ordination  of  Oliver  Prentice  over  the  North 
Stonington  Separate  church,  May  22,  1752.  Solo- 
mon Paine  had  assisted  at  the  ordination  of  Stephen 
Babcock  at  Westerly.  But  at  North  Stonington 
Mr.  Babcock  refused  to  act  with  Solomon  Paine,  be- 
cause in  Mr.  Babcock's  view,  he  was  not  baptized. 
The  next  year  Paine  and  Babcock  called  a  general 
meeting  of  Separate  and  Baptist  churches  to  effect 
a  gospel  settlement  of  the  differences.  "Twenty- 
four  churches  in  Connecticut,  eight  in  Massachu- 
setts, seven  in  Rhode  Island,  and  one  on  Long  Island 
were  represented  in  this  notable  gathering,  May  29, 
1754,"  says  Mr.  Browning.  The  convention  sat 
three  days.  Reconciliation  failed.  The  alliance  of 
Separates  and  Baptists,  as  religious  bodies,  was  at  an 
end.  Individuals  left  the  former  to  join  the  latter. 
But  no  church  of  the  former  forsook  its  pedobaptist 
principles. 

Thus  the  Separate  movement  was  the  emphatic 
protest  of  sincere  and  earnest  souls  against  what 
they  believed  to  be  the  corrupt  practices  of  the  es- 
tablished churches.  They  doubtless  went  to  ex- 
tremes. Reactions  are  liable  to.  But  many  of 
them  were  men  and  women  who  were  in  advance  of 
their  times  in  spiritual  experiences,  and  in  their 
views  of  the  truth.  They  could  not  endure  a  church 
order  which  made  no  distinction  between  the  regen- 
erate and  the  unregenerate.       They  began  to  fight 


88  The  Separates 

the  battle  between  justification  by  faith,  and  by  good 
works.  Their  protest  against  practices  which 

brought  spiritual  death  into  the  church  came  none 
too  soon.  They  were  often  violent  in  their  speech 
against  those  whom  they  believed  to  be  in  error. 
But  they  were  in  dead  earnest,  and  such  earnestness 
is  not  always  cool.  They  overdid  things.  Buft 
they  felt,  as  a  fire  burning  in  their  bones,  that  things 
were  being  grossly  and  notoriously  underdone.  Nor 
can  it  be  said  that  they  had  no  reason  for  this  con- 
viction. 


IV 

THEIR     CHARACTERISTICS     AND     EX- 
TRAVAGANCES 

That  the  Separate  movement  was  attended  by 
great  excesses  and  extravagances,  goes  without 
saying.  These  were  a  sign  of  weakness  and  not  of 
power.  They  betrayed  a  total  lack  of  that  balance 
and  poise  which  are  essential  to  give  permanency  and 
weight  to  a  movement.  Their  disposition  was  to 
make  religion  consist  in  emotions,  in  outcries,  in 
bodily  agitations,  in  great  fears  and  excessive  joys, 
in  zeal  and  talk.  They  claimed  that  the  power  of 
godliness  lay  in  such  outcries,  and  that  bodily  mo- 
tions were  the  outward  manifestation  of  the  inward 
spirit,  and  that  where  the  former  were  lacking,  the 
latter  did  not  exist.  They  insisted  that  to  repress 
these  outward  tokens  was  to  grieve  the  Spirit.  They 
also  claimed  the  right  denied  them  by  the  established 
churches,  to  exercise  their  gifts  in  public,  as  the 
Spirit  moved  them,  whether  by  praying,  exhorting, 
expounding  or  preaching,  as  they  felt  impressed  to 
do.  This  was  one  of  the  reasons  stated  by  the  Pres- 
ton church  for  coming  out  from  ithe  established 
church  in  town.  They  preferred  to  hear  their  own 
exhorters  rather  than  the  regular  ministers,  and  de- 
clared that  more  souls  were  converted  under  the  ex- 
hortations of  the  former  than  under  the  preaching  of 


go  The  Separates 

the  latter.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to  affirm  that 
men  and  women  who  did  not  have  such  experiences 
as  they  professed  to  have,  had  not  been  converted. 
It  was  declared  of  such  men  as  Eliphalet  Adams  of 
New  London,  and  David  Jewett  of  the  North  Par- 
ish, New  London,  whose  godliness  was  proverbial 
throughout  the  county,  that  they  had  never  been  con- 
verted, because  they  had  none  of  these  ecstasies 
which  the  Separates  declared  to  be  essential  to  con- 
version. If  they  did  not  feel  a  minister's  preaching, 
as  they  expressed  it,  they  declared  that  he  was  un- 
converted; or  that  he  was  legal  and  dead,  and  did 
not  preach  Christ  with  power.  They  would  hear 
none  of  the  standing  ministers,  except  "such  as  they 
called  converted,  lively,  powerful  preachers."  By 
these  they  meant  those  preachers  who,  like  White- 
field,  were  deeply  emotional,  and  aroused  corre- 
sponding emotions  in  their  hearers.  They  paid 
great  attention  to  trances  and  visions,  in  which  some 
of  them  would  lie  for  hours.  On  coming  to  them- 
selves they  would  have  wonderful  things  to  relate; 
declaring  that  they  had  seen  the  future  world  and 
that  certain  persons,  if  dead,  were  in  heaven  or  hell; 
and  that  certain  others,  who  were  still  alive,  were 
going  to  the  one  place  or  the  other. 

Two  men  were  associated  with  this  movement  at 
its  inception  in  New  London,  whose  relation  to  it 
was  such  that  they  demand  special  mention.  They 
were  Rev.  James  Davenport  of  Southold,  L.  I.,  and 
Rev.  Timothy  Allen  of  West  Haven.       The  latter 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances        91 

was  pastor  of  the  regular  church  in  West  Haven. 
He  was  an  able  and  zealous  preacher.  His  Calvin- 
ism was  unimpeachable.  But  his  consociation  was 
displeased  with  some  of  his  imprudences,  as  they 
termed  them,  and  deposed  him  from  the  ministry. 
The  immediate  cause  of  this  action  was  that  he  was 
alleged  to  have  compared  the  Bible  to  an  old  al- 
manac. But  the  head  and  front  of  his  offending 
was  that  he  had  entered  actively  inlto  the  Great 
Awakening.  For  he  offered  ample  apology  for  his 
unguarded  remark,  but  without  avail.  What  he 
actually  did  say  was,  that  "the  reading  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  without  the  concurring  influence  and 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  will  no  more  convert  a 
sinner  than  the  reading  of  an  old  Almanack." 
Though  it  was  true  that  no  external  means  would 
convert  a  sinner,  yet  Mr.  Allen  admitted  that  the 
manner  of  expression  was  wrong,  and  so  confessed 
to  the  consociation.  But  they  refused  to  listen. 
His  dismission  followed.  The  council  which  per- 
formed this  deed  boasted  that  it  had  blown  out  one 
"new  light,"  and  that  they  would  blow  them  all  out. 
He  came  to  New  London  to  take  charge  of  the  Sep- 
arate movement  in  1742.  For  Mr.  Hempstead  says 
in  his  diary,  July  10,  1742,  "I  was  at  Mr.  Miller's 
with  the  Rest  of  the  Authority  [Mr.  Hempstead  was 
justice  of  the  peace]  to  speak  with  Mr.  Allen,  a  Sus- 
pended minister  who  is  come  here  from  N  Haven, 
West  Side  and  sets  up  to  preach  in  private  houses." 
This  was  against  the  law,  but  in  New  London  the 


92  The  Separates 

Separates  obtained  the  privilege  of  holding  such 
services  from  the  County  Court,  and  were  not  mo- 
lested. Mr.  Allen  remained  about  a  year  in  New 
London.  He  resided  in  a  house,  still  standing  in 
1902,  fitted  up  for  the  purpose,  and  known  as  the 
Shepherd's  Tent.  He  kept  a  school  for  the  initiates 
in  the  upper  part,  where  young  men  were  trained 
for  the  Separate  ministry.  After  a  brief  service  he 
left  town,  and  ultimately  reentered  the  Congrega- 
tional ministry,  and  served  the  church  in  Ashford 
from  October,  1757,  to  January,  1764,  and  after- 
wards churches  in  Massachusetts,  until  he  died  in 
1806,  at  the  age  of  over  eighty  years,  and  after  a 
ministry  of  sixty-eight  years. 

James  Davenport,  who  was  the  founder  of  the 
Separate  church  in  New  London,  was  the  great- 
grandson  of  the  founder  of  the  New  Haven  colony. 
He  was  pastor  of  a  church  in  Southold,  Long  Island. 
Whitefield  had  been  preaching  in  various  places  in 
New  England  and  elsewhere.  A  profound  inter- 
est in  spiritual  things  was  awakened.  Reports  of 
his  labors  reached  the  ears  of  Davenport.  He 

visited  the  great  evangelist,  who  received  him  warm- 
ly, and  afterwards  expressed  a  very  high  regard  for 
his  abilities  and  personal  character.  Rev.  Andrew 
Croswell,  in  a  pamphlet  prepared  in  Davenport's  de- 
fence said,  "Mr.  Whitefield  declared  in  conversa- 
tion, that  he  never  knew  one  keep  so  close  walk  with 
God  as  Mr.  Davenport."  Others  concurred  in  this 
view,  as  for  example,  Gilbert  Tennent,  Parsons  of 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances      93 

Lyme,  and  Owen  of  Groton.  Mr.  Owen  said  that 
"the  idea  he  had  of  the  apostles  themselves  scarcely 
exceeded  what  he  saw  in  Mr.  Davenport."  Mr. 
Croswell  said  that  there  was  not  a  minister  in  all 
Connecticut,  zealously  affected  in  the  cause  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  who  would  not  be  inclined  to  re- 
ceive Mr.  Davenport  "almost  as  if  he  was  an  angel 
from  heaven." 

These  extravagant  statements  do  not  express  the 
view  which  a  majority  of  the  clergymen  of  Connecti- 
cut held  about  Mr.  Davenport.  Mr.  Adams  of  New 
London,  Mr.  Fitch  of  Stonington,  Mr.  Jewett  of  the 
North  Parish  and  others,  had  reason  to  hold  very  dif- 
ferent opinions.  Yet  the  fact  is  that  Davenport 
was  a  man  of  piety,  of  strong  religious  sentiments, 
of  a  good  degree  of  ability  and  persuasive  in  his  pul- 
pit efforts.  During  the  four  or  five  years  of 
his  most  erratic  conduct,  he  seemed  to  be  swept  off 
his  feet,  and  to  be  under  the  stress  of  a  misguided 
and  unrestrained  religious  enthusiasm,  which  bor- 
dered closely  on  insanity,  and  led  him  into  those  ex- 
cesses for  which  he  afterwards  made  due  acknowl- 
edgment. 

His  strange  career  began  in  his  own  parish  of 
Southold,  L.  I.  He  gathered  his  people  together  at 
his  lodgings,  after  his  visit  to  Whitefield,  and  ad- 
dressed them  for  almost  twenty-four  hours  together. 
It  is  not  unlikely,  says  Tracy,  that  those  physical 
conditions  had  begun,  at  that  time,  which  tempora- 
rily affected  his  soundness  of  mind.    He  believed  that 


94  The  Separates 

many  in  his  church  were  unconverted,  and  set  him- 
self up  as  judge  of  regenerate  and  unregenerate 
character.  Accordingly  he  made  distinctions,  ad- 
dressing those  whom  he  considered  regenerate,  as 
"brother,''  and  the  others  as  "neighbor."  Soon  he 
forbade  the  "neighbors"  to  come  to  the  Lord's 
table.  This  created  no  small  stir  among  his  people. 
Not  long  after  he  commenced  his  itinerancies. 
July  1 8,  1 74 1,  he  came  to  New  London,  and  held 
meetings  in  the  meeting-house  in  the  evening.  Mr. 
Joshua  Hempstead  gives  in  his  diary  the  following 
description  of  the  scene  at  Davenport's  first  appear- 
ance in  that  place : — 

Divers  women  were  terrified  and  cried  out  exceed- 
ingly. When  Mr.  Davenport  had  dismissed  the 
congregation  some  went  out,  others  stayed.  He 
then  went  into  the  broad  alley,  which  was  much 
crowded,  and  there  screamed  out,  "Come  to  Christ  I 
Come  to  Christ !  Come  away !  Come  away !" 
Then  he  went  into  the  third  pew  on  the  women's  side 
and  kept  there,  sometimes  singing,  sometimes  pray- 
ing; he  and  companions  all  taking  their  turn,  and 
the  women  fainting  and  in  hysterics.  This  con- 
tinued till  ten  o'clock  at  night,  and  then  he  went  off 
singing  through  the  streets. 

Similar  scenes  were  enacted  in  the  North  Parish, 
in  Stonington  and  in  Groton.  In  Stonington  it  is 
said  that  about  one  hundred  were  struck  under  con- 
viction by  his  first  sermon.  In  Groton,  Hempstead 
tells  us  that  immense  audiences  waited  on  his  preach- 
ing.      "About  6o  were  wounded;  many  strong  men 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances        95 

as  well  as  others."  Wherever  he  went  he  de- 
nounced, as  unconverted,  not  only  professing 
Christians,  but  clergymen  held  in  high  esteem  for 
their  piety,  such  as  Mr.  Adams  of  New  London,  Mr. 
Eells  of  Stonington,  Mr.  Jewett  of  the  North  Parish 
in  New  London.  In  Stonington  his  attacks  upon 
Mr.  Eells  were  so  unreasonable  that  the  people  were 
indignant,  and  his  congregations  soon  left  him. 
Tracy  says,  "Among  tlhose  whom  he  condemned 
was  the  venerable  Eliphalet  Adams  of  New  London, 
Connecticut,  whose  faithful  labors  had  been  the  prin- 
cipal means  of  preserving  the  flame  of  piety  in  that 
region  from  extinction,  and  under  whom  there  had 
been  a  happy  revival  in  1721,  the  period  of  deepest 
darkness  in  New  England.  Here  his  influence  in 
alienations  and  divisions  is  said  to  have  been  pecul- 
iarly unhappy,  though  no  particulars  are  given ;  and 
the  report  of  the  injustice  done  to  a  man  so  exten- 
sively known  and  revered,  and  the  injury  done  to  his 
people,  produced  a  deep  sensation  throughout  the 
country."  Reference  is  here  made  to  the  defection 
from  Mr.  Adams'  church  which  Davenport  was  in- 
strumental in  causing.  Particulars  will  be  given 
when  we  speak  of  the  constituting  of  the  Separate 
church  in  New  London.  The  same  year  he  went  to 
New  Haven,  in  September,  and  preached  in  the 
church  of  Mr.  Noyes,  at  the  latter' s  invitation,  un- 
til he  called  the  pastor  an  unconverted  man,  when 
he  was  excluded  from  the  pulpit. 

Mr.  Davenport's  proceedings  were  so  gross  and 


96  The  Separates 

disturbing  to  the  peace,  that  complaint  was  entered 
against  him  to  the  colonial  legislature  in  May,  1742. 
After  due  trial  it  was  decided  that  "the  behavior, 
conduct  and  doctrines  advanced  by  the  said  James 
Davenport  do,  and  have  a  natural  tendency  to,  dis- 
turb and  destroy  the  peace  and  order  of  this  govern- 
ment. Yet  it  further  appears  to  this  Assembly, 
that  the  said  Davenport  is  under  influence  of  enthu- 
siastical  impressions  and  impulses,  and  thereby  dis- 
turbed in  the  rational  faculties  of  his  mind,  and 
therefore  to  be  pitied  and  compassionated,  and  not 
to  be  treated  as  otherwise  he  might  be."  It  was 
therefore  ordered  that  he  be  sent  home  to  Southold. 
On  hearing  the  decision  he  said,  "Though  I  must  go, 
I  hope  Christ  will  not,  but  will  tarry  and  carry  on 
his  work  in  this  government,  in  spite  of  all  the  pow- 
er and  malice  of  earth  and  hell."  About  four 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  on  the  third  day  of  June,  a 
sheriff  with  two  files  of  men,  armed  with  musketsr 
conducted  him  to  the  banks  of  the  Connecticut  in 
Hartford,  and  put  him  on  board  a  vessel  whose 
owner  agreed  to  carry  him  to  his  home. 

On  the  29th  of  June  he  was  in  Boston.  Here  his 
conduct  soon  brought  him  under  censure  of  the  as- 
sociation of  ministers  in  that  city,  most  of  whom  he 
had  declared  to  be  unconverted.  This  body  drew 
up  a  "Declaration  with  regard  to  Rev.  Mr.  James 
Davenport  and  his  conduct."  This  was  signed  by 
the  ministers  of  Boston,  and  published  on  the  first 
of  July,  1742.      He  was  consequently  excluded  from 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances      9*7 

the  pulpits  of  Boston;  whereupon  he  repaired  to 
the  Common,  and  preached  to  decreasing  audiences. 
Here  and  at  Copp's  Hill  the  disturbances  complained 
of  were  repeated.  All  the  time  he  was  in  Boston 
he  was  in  trouble  because  of  his  violent  eccentrici- 
ties. Matters  came  to  such  a  pass  that  the  grand 
jury  took  the  case  up.  One  of  the  witnesses  testi- 
fied 'that  he  heard  Davenport  say,  "Good  Lord,  I  will 
not  mince  the  matter  any  longer  with  thee ;  for  thou 
knowest  that  I  know  that  most  of  the  ministers  of 
Itfhe  Town  of  Boston  and  of  the  country  are  uncon- 
verted, and  are  leading  their  people  blindfold  to 
hell."  The  grand  jury  set  forth  in  their  present- 
ment, August  19,  1742,  that: — 

One  James  Davenport  of  Southold — under 
pretence  of  praying,  preaching,  exhorting,  at  di- 
vers places  in  the  towns  of  Boston  and  Dorchester, 
and  at  divers  times  in  July  last  and  August  current — 
did — in  the  hearing  of  great  numbers  of  the  sub- 
jects of  our  Lord  the  King,  maliciously  publish, 
and  with  loud  voice  utter  and  declare  many  slander- 
ous and  railing  speeches  against  the  godly  and  faith- 
ful ministers  of  this  province,  but  more  particularly 
against  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  town  of 
Boston  aforesaid — viz. :  that  the  greatest  part  of  said 
ministers  were  carnal  and  unconverted  men;  that 
they  knew  nothing  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  they 
were  leading  their  people  blindfold,  down  to  hell,  and 
that  they  were  destroying  and  murdering  souls  by 
thousands;  the  said  James  Davenport,  at  the  same 
time,  advising  their  hearers  to  withdraw  from  said 
ministers,  and  not  to  hear  them  preach;    by  means 


98  The  Separates 

whereof,  great  numbers  of  people  have  withdrawn 
from  the  public  worship  of  God  and  the  assemblies 
by  law  required." 

This  presentment  of  the  grand  jury  was  sustained 
by  twenty-one  out  of  twenty-three  jurors.  One  of 
the  two  who  dissented  was  an  ignorant  exhorter ;  the 
other  was  a  Quaker  whose  conscience  would  not  let 
him  vote  on  such  matters.  The  finding  of  the  jury 
was  issued  Thursday. 

On  Saturday,  August  21,  Mr.  Davenport  was 
arrested,  and,  on  refusing  offered  bail,  he  was 
committed  for  trial.  On  Tuesday,  August  24,  he 
was  tried.  Several  clergymen  addressed  a 
ndte  to  the  court,  asking  that  no  severity 
should  be  used  on  their  account,  but  that 
the  matter  should  be  treated  with  all  the 
leniency  consistenlt1  with  justice  and  the  pub- 
lic peace.  The  court  decided,  "that  the  said  James 
Davenport  uttered  the  words  laid  in  this  present- 
ment, except  these  words,  'that  they  (viz.,  the  min- 
isters) knew  nothing  of  Jesus  Christ;'  and  that,  at 
the  time  when  he  uttered  'these  words,  he  was  non 
compos  mentis,  and  therefore  that  the  said  James 
Davenport  is  not  guilty." 

After  this  he  seems  to  have  returned  to  Southold, 
and  spent  the  winter  of  1742  and  1743  with  his 
people.  October  7,  1742,  a  council  met  at  Southold 
which  severely  censured  him  for  his  irregular  ab- 
sences from  his  church.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  win- 
ter Mr.  Hempstead  was  in  Southold,  on  a  visit  to  his 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances      99 

son,  Robert.  He  went  to  hear  Mr.  Davenport 
preach  February  27,  1743,  and  on  that  date  made 
this  entry  in  his  diary : — 

I  went  to  town  to  hear  Mr.  Davenport,  but  it  was 
scarcely  worth  the  hearing, — the  praying  was  with- 
out form  or  Comliness.  It  was  difficult  to  distin- 
guish between  his  praying  and  preaching,  for  it 
was  all  a  mieer  confused  medley.  he  had  no  text 
nor  Bible  visible,  no  Doctrines,  no  uses,  nor  Im- 
provement, nor  anything  else  that  was  Regular 
forenoon  nor  afternoon,  and  the  last  Sabbath  be- 
fore by  Report  was  of  ye  same  piece  tho  not  on  the 
same  subject.  for  then  it  was  the  hand  of  the  Lord 
is  upon  me  Over  and  over  many  times.  then  leave 
off  and  begin  again  the  Same  words  verbatim. 
Now  it  was  ( in  addition  to  telling  of  his  own  Reve- 
lation and  others  Concerning  the  Shepherd's  Tent 
[in  New  London]  and  other  such  things)  he  called 
the  people  to  sing  a  new  song  &c.  forevermore  30 
or  40  times  Immediately  following  as  fast  as  one 
word  could  follow  after  another  30  or  40  times  or 
more  and  yn  Something  else  and  then  over  with  it 
again.     I  can't  relate  the  Inconsistence  of  it. 

This  seems  to  have  been  at  the  climax  of  Mr. 
Davenport's  erratic  course.  For  on  Wednesday,  the 
second  day  of  March  following  he  came  to  New 
London,  and  on  the  next  Sabbath,  March  6, 
he  organized  the  Separates  who  had  seceded  from 
Mr.  Adams'  church  into  a  society.  They  had  held 
meetings  about  a  year.  Davenport  said  that  he  had 
come  to  deliver  a  message  from  God  with  a  view 
to  purify  the  company  of  Separates  from  certain 


ioo  The  Separates 

evils  which  he  declared  had  crept  in  among  them. 
He  preached  one  of  his  fervid,  zealous  sermons,  in 
which  he  dwelt  with  great  emphasis  upon  the  need 
of  a  pure  church.  In  order  to  have  such  a  church 
i't  would  be  necessary  to  destroy  and  burn  every  idol 
of  whatever  sort.  He  denounced  certain  religious 
books  which  had  been  read  as  spiritual  guides,  and 
were  regarded  as  standards  of  faith,  but  which  he 
declared  contained  false  and  hurtful  doctrines. 
Among  the  condemned  books,  says  Tracy,  "were 
Beveridge,  Flavel,  Drs.  Increase  Mather,  Colman, 
and  Sewall,  and  that  fervid  revivalist,  Jonathan 
Parsons  of  Lyme."  He  called  upon  those  who  were 
to  be  constituted  into  a  church,  to  renounce  all  such 
idolatry.  It  was  proposed  that  each,  with  his  idol, 
whether  of  books,  or  jewels,  or  clothing,  should  re- 
pair to  a  certain  place  and  make  a  bonfire  of  (the 
whole  collection,  and  utterly  consume  them.  The 
people  responded  with  alacrity,  and  there  were 
brought  to  his  room,  so  that  he  might,  by  solemn 
decree,  consign  them  to  the  flames,  a  great  collec- 
tion of  books,  sermons,  wigs,  cloaks,  breeches, 
hoods,  gowns,  garments  of  various  sorts,  jewels, 
and  similar  articles  which  those  who  brought  them 
valued.  When  all  was  ready  they  repaired  to  the 
place  agreed  upon.  Dr.  Hallam,  in  his  Annals  of 
Saint  James,  identifies  the  spot  as  follows :  "The 
wretched  scene  was  exhibited  in  front  of  Mr.  Chris- 
tophers', at  the  head  of  what  is  now  Hallam  Street." 
The  articles  brought  were  thrown  together  in  a  pile, 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances     101 

and  set  on  fire  and  consumed.  Mr.  Trumbull  gives 
the  following  account  of  this  strange  proceeding : 

"In  New  London  they  carried  it  [their  enthu- 
siasm] to  such  a  degree,  that  they  made  a  large  fire 
to  burn  their  books,  clothes,  ornaments,  which  they 
called  their  idols;  and  which  they  now  determined 
to  forsake  and  utterly  put  away.  This  imaginary 
work  of  piety  and  self-denial  they  undertook  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  and  brought  their  clothes,  books,  neck- 
laces and  jewels  together  in  the  main  street.  They 
began  with  burning  their  erroneous  books;  drop- 
ping them  one  after  another  into  the  fire,  pronounc- 
ing these  words,  'If  the  author  of  this  book  died  in 
the  same  sentiments  and  faith  in  which  he  wrote  it, 
as  the  smoke  of  this  pile  ascends,  so  the  smoke  of 
his  torment  will  ascend  forever  and  ever.  Hal- 
lelujah. Amen.'  But  they  were  prevented  from 
burning  their  clothes  and  jewels.  John  Lee,  of 
Lyme,  Itold  them  his  idols  were  his  wife  and  chil- 
dren, and  that  he  could  not  burn  them;  it  would 
be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God  and  man;  that  it 
was  impossible  to  destroy  idolatry  without  a  change 
of  heart,  and  of  the  affection." 

This  strange  constitution  of  the  Separate  church 
in  New  London  seems  to  have  sounded  the  knell  of 
its  early  dissolution.  Mr.  Allen  left  soon  after,  and 
they  were  unable  to  agree  upon  his  successor.  The 
burning  of  books,  whose  authors  were  esteemed  and 
noted  for  piety,  was  regarded  as  almost  sacrilegious. 
The  strange  performance  seems  to  have  startled  the 


102  The  Separates 

"New  Lights"  themselves,  and  to  have  brought 
them  to  a  more  rational  mood.  From  this  on  they 
were  guided  by  more  sober  sense  and  discretion. 
Some,  at  least,  of  the  leaders  returned  to  the  church 
from  which  they  came  out.  Others  joined  the 
Baptists.  March  30,  1743,  twenty-four  days  af- 
ter the  bonfire,  some  of  those  who  took  part  in  the 
scenes  were  tried  for  profanation  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  were  fined  "five  shillings  each  and  the  cost;  of 
prosecution." 

The  burning  of  the  books,  and  other  articles,  in  the 
middle  of  Main  street  in  New  London,  seems  to  have 
marked  the  climax  of  Mr.  Davenport's  erratic  ca- 
reer; for  in  the  following  summer,  1744,  he  came 
to  himself.  In  July  of  'that  year  he  published  re- 
tractions which  he  sent  to  Rev.  Solomon  Williams  of 
Lebanon,  Conn.,  and  to  Rev.  Mr.  Prince  of  Boston, 
for  publication.  Mr.  Williams  said,  in  a  letter  ac- 
companying the  document,  "He  is  full  and  free  in  it, 
and  seems  to  be  deeply  sensible  of  his  miscarriages 
and  misconduct  in  those  particulars,  and  very  de- 
sirous to  do  all  he  possibly  can  to  retrieve  the  dis- 
honor which  he  has  done  to  religion,  and  the  in- 
justice to  many  ministers  of  the  gospel."  The  "Re- 
tractions," are  a  clear,  candid,  straightforward  ac- 
knowledgment of  error  "in  the  various  particulars 
in  which  he  had  offended."  Some  of  the  particu- 
lars mentioned  were  affirming  that  ministers  were 
unconverted,  and  advising  and  causing  separations. 
He  adds,  "And  here  I  would  ask  the  forgiveness 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances    103 

of  those  ministers  whom  I  have  injured  in  both  these 
articles."  He  further  deplores,  "following  impulses 
or  impressions,  as  a  rule  of  conduct"  and  "great  stiff- 
ness in  retaining  these  aforesaid  errors  a  great 
while."  The  man  was  sincere,  but  unbalanced. 
Twice  he  was  judged  insane.  He  was  a  useful  man, 
and,  except  during  the  four  or  five  years  when  he 
was  beside  himself,  his  life  was  passed  in  honor  and 
peace. 

The  scenes  just  described  shed  some  light  upon 
the  tendency  of  these  people  to  be  carried  away 
with  enthusiasm.  They  were  influenced  more  by 
impressions  than  by  calm  and  clear  views  of  the 
truth.  Trumbull  says,  "They  laid  great  weight 
upon  their  lively  imaginations,  or  views  of  an  out- 
ward Christ,  or  of  Christ  without  them,  whether 
they  had  a  view  of  him  in  heaven,  on  a  throne  sur- 
rounded by  adoring  angels,  or  on  a  cross,  suffering, 
bleeding,  dying,  and  the  like.  Some  looked  on  this 
as  a  precious,  saving  discovery  of  Christ." 

Some  of  their  extravagances  were  of  a  divisive 
character,  and  were  carried  to  hurtful  extremes.  Dr. 
Walker  says,  "Something  more  than  indiscretion 
characterized  utterances  whose  direct  influence  was 
to  alienate  congregations  from  their  pastors,  and  to 
stimulate  and  encourage  whatever  was  extravagant 
in  the  emotions  of  their  hearers."  Their  preaching 
was  of  the  hortatory  style,  and  indulged  in  imagery 
borrowed  from  the  Bible.  It  took  on  a  kind  of 
apocalyptic  strain,  and  was  calculated  to  arouse  the 


104  The  Separates 

emotions;  so  that  there  was  naturally  more  or  less 
of  excitement  in  their  religious  experiences.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  about  the  sincerity  of  the  motives 
which  actuated  these  people.  It  was  an  endeavor 
to  reach  a  more  fervid  type  of  piety.  Persuaded, 
and  often  too  justly,  of  the  secularized  character  of 
the  churches  to  which  they  had  belonged,  they  took 
the  decisive  step,  separated  themselves  and  formed 
churches  which  would  represent  their  own  convic- 
tions and  religious  experience.  The  cry  that  rang 
through  the  eastern  part  of  the  colony  was,  "Come 
out  from  among  them  and  be  ye  separate;"  "come 
out  from  (these  dead  and  corrupted  churches;  from 
the  abominable  tyranny  of  those  unchristian  and  un- 
godly Civil  Constitutions,  and  rejoice  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free." 

In  keeping  with  the  original  motive  behind  the 
Separatist  movement,  they  were  very  strict  in  their 
discipline  and  exercised  great  caution  in  admitting 
members  to  ifcheir  fellowship  and  communion.  Here 
they  often  overshot  the  mark.  A  censorious  spirit 
and  mutual  criticism,  together  with  extravagance  in 
church  discipline  sometimes  destroyed  the  peace  of 
their  churches.  Mr.  Hempstead  gives  the  follow- 
ing case  which  occurred  in  New  London,  and  illus- 
trates what  we  mean.  February  2,  1743,  he  made 
the  following  entry  in  his  diary : — 

Nath.  Williams  of  Stonington  lodged  here.  he 
went  over  in  the  evening  to  Mr.  Hills's  alias  alien's, 
at  the  house  that  was  Samuel  Harris's   (now  the 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances    105 

Shepherd's  tent)  and  there  Related  his  Christian 
Experiences  in  order  to  have  their  approbation,  be- 
hold the  Quite  Contrary,  for  they  upon  examina- 
tion, find  him  yet  in  an  unconverted  estate,  and  he 
confesses  the  justice  of  their  Judgement,  and  says 
that  he  hath  judged  others  Divers  times,  and  altho 
he  is  unwilling  to  believe  it,  yet  like  others  he  is 
forced  to  bear  it. 

The  practice  of  relating  one's  experience,  upon  en- 
tering the  church,  which  the  standing  churches,  un- 
der the  Half-Way  Covenant,  had  pretty  generally 
abandoned,  the  Separates  insisted  on,  and  contin- 
ued, as  a  necessary  safeguard  against  the  admission 
of  unconverted  persons  into  their  fellowship.  Be- 
lieving, as  they  did,  that  the  power  of  discerning  re- 
generate character  was  given  to  the  people  of  God 
for  their  habitual  guidance  and  defence,  they  insisted 
the  more  strenuously  upon  these  narrations  of  expe- 
rience of  renewing  grace.  Trumbull  says,  "As  to 
admission  of  persons  to  their  communion  and  church 
discipline,  they  were  as  strict  as  the  standing 
churches,  at  that  time,  if  not  more  so.  They  as 
much  insisted  on  sanctification  and  a  holy  life  that 
men  might  be  saved,  as  did  the  standing  ministers 
and  churches."  The  fact  is  that  they  were  far  more 
strict  in  these  particulars.  Indeed,  as  the  incident  of 
Mr.  Williams,  quoted  above,  and  councils  called  to 
adjust  quarrels  between  members  who  once  infallibly 
knew  each  other  to  be  saints,  show,  their  strictness 
in  judging  often  became  censoriousness  of  spirit. 

Another  of  the  peculiarities  of  these  people,  and 


106  The  Separates 

one  which  robbed  their  movement  of  the  influence 
and  power  which  it  might  have  had,  was  their  belief 
that  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  superseded  the 
need  of  "book  learning,"  or  careful  preparation  to 
preach  the  Word.  The  movement,  therefore,  natu- 
rally fell  into  the  hands  of  ignorant  and  well-nigh  il- 
literate leaders.  Trumbull  says,  "Because  min- 
isters studied  their  sermons,  they  called  their  exer- 
cises, preaching  out  of  the  head,  and  declared  that 
they  could  not  be  edified  by  it.  They  maintained 
that  there  was  no  need  of  anything  more  than  com- 
mon learning,  to  qualify  men  for  the  ministry;  that 
if  a  man  had  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  was  no  matter 
whether  he  had  any  learning  at  all."  The  Sepa- 
rates of  North  Stonington,  as  we  shall  see,  claimed 
to  have  received  revelation  of  things  not  revealed  in 
the  Scriptures.  In  less  than  a  year,  by  special  reve- 
lation, they  chose  their  first  minister,  ordained  him, 
silenced  and  cast  him  out  of  the  church,  and  gave 
him  over  to  Satan.  When  Paul  Parke  of  Preston 
was  ordained,  "He  was  solemnly  charged  not  to  pre- 
meditate or  think  beforehand  what  he  should  speak 
to  the  people;  but  to  speak  as  the  Spirit  should  give 
him  utterance."  Consequently  they  had  a  zeal,  not 
tempered  with  knowledge,  which  led  them  off  into 
many  extravagances  of  ignorance. 

However,  they  did,  in  at  least  one  instance,  and 
probably  in  others,  seek  to  establish  schools  for  the 
training  of  young  men  for  their  ministry.  The 
"Shepherd's  Tent,"  in  New  London,  to  which  refer- 


Their  Characteristics  and  Extravagances     107 

ence  has  already  been  made,  was  both  a  dwelling  for 
Rev.  Timothy  Allen  during  his  brief  sojourn  in  New 
London,  and  a  school  for  the  instruction  of  Separate 
preachers.  Other  similar  attempts  seem  to  have 
been  planned,  if  they  were  not  actually  undertaken. 
But,  as  we  shall  see,  the  legislature,  with  its  custom- 
ary promptness,  put  an  end  to  all  such  plans  of  the 
Separates,  which  looked  toward  a  more  liberal  edu- 
cation, by  an  act  passed  in  October,  1742,  which  for- 
bade the  establishment  of  such  schools  without  per- 
mission of  the  Assembly ;  which  the  Assembly  was 
careful  not  to  give. 

Nevertheless,  some  of  their  teachers  were  of  no 
mean  order,  and  held  their  places  for  many  years. 
Elisha  Paine,  one  of  their  number,  was  a  man  of  su- 
perior education  and  sound  judgment — qualities 
which  enabled  him  to  be,  in  some  measure,  a  leader 
among  them,  and  to  control  the  contending  elements. 
The  Windham  County  Association  of  ministers  ex- 
amined him,  and  gave  their  opinion  "that  he  was 
qualified,  and  that  it  was  his  duty  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel." But  he  refused  to  subscribe  to  the  Saybrook 
Platform,  and  was  therefore  debarred  by  law  from 
preaching.  But  he  preached  and  was  put  in  jail  for 
doing  what  the  Windham  County  Association  had 
said  he  was  qualified  to  do  and  ought  to  do.  He 
was  looked  up  to  by  the  Separates  as  their  Moses. 
After  suffering  divers  persecutions  for  his  faith,  he 
accepted  a  call  to  a  Separate  church  at  Bridgehamp- 
ton,  L.  I.,  and  passed  there  the  evening  of  his  days 
ministering  to  their  spiritual  needs. 


io8  The  Separates 

Paul  Parke  was  pastor  of  the  Preston  Separate 
church  from  June  18,  1747  till  he  died  in  1802, 
and  with  him  the  Preston  Separate  Church;  al- 
though it  continued  a  struggling  existence  till  1817. 
The  last  entry  on  its  records  was  made  July 
2J  of  that  year.  Mr.  Parke  was  one  of 
the  half-century  ministers  of  Connecticut.  John 
Palmer  of  Brunswick  preached  for  fifty-eight  years. 
Rev.  David  Rowland  of  Plainfield,  whose  position 
as  pastor  of  the  established  church  was  such  as  to 
make  him  obnoxious  to  the  Separates,  said  of  the 
minister  of  the  Separate  church  in  that  town,  Rev. 
Mr.  Stevens,  that  he  was  "a  very  clear  and  power- 
ful preacher  of  the  gospel."  This  is  unbiased  testi- 
mony. But  these  were  the  exceptions.  Igno- 
rance, coupled  with  the  belief  that  they  could  judge 
unerringly  of  the  Christian  character  of  others,  led 
to  wrong  judgments,  which  often  ended  in  bitter 
controversies  which  councils  were  called  to  settle. 
The  peace  of  God  that  passeth  understanding  did 
not  always  keep  their  minds  and  hearts.  Councils 
called  to  assist  in  settling  difficulties  in  local  churches 
are  proof  that  the  ideal  church,  which  they  hoped 
to  realize  when  they  withdrew  from  the  standing 
churches,  was  ever  an  eluding  ignis  fatuus. 


V 
THEIR    PERSECUTIONS 

The  peculiar  characteristics  of  the  Separates 
exposed  them  to  persecution.  For  their  views  led 
them  to  pursue  courses  which  were  directly  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  the  colony.  Baptists,  Episco- 
palians and  Quakers  were  allowed  the  benefit  of  the 
Act  of  Toleration.  But  the  legislature  declared 
that  "those  commonly  called  Presbyterians  or  Con- 
gregationalists should  not  take  the  benefit  of  these 
Acts ;  and  only  such  persons  as  had  any  distinguish- 
ing character  by  which  they  might  be  known  from 
Presbyterians  or  Congregationalists,  and  from 
Consociated  churches,  might  expect  indulgence." 
The  Separates  claimed  to  be  Congregationalists,  and 
were  made  to  feel  the  keen  edge  of  the  law. 

Their  story  is  one  of  opposition,  hardship  and  per- 
secution paralleled,  in  these  later  times,  only  by  the 
persecutions  of  the  Separatists  of  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century  in  England.  At  every  point 
they  found  themselves  confronting  a  law  which  had 
been  framed  to  oppose  them,  so  that  they  could  not 
make  a  move  without  incurring  its  penalty.  We 
have  spoken  of  their  attempt  to  establish  schools  in 
order  to  supply  their  churches  with  an  educated  min- 
istry. Certainly  this  was  a  laudable  purpose,  and 
one  to  be  encouraged  by  the  law.       If  it  had  been 


109 


no  The  Separates 

carried  out  it  probably  in  time  would  have  eliminated 
from  the  movement  its  fatal  element  of  ignorance. 
But  in  1742  the  legislature  met  this  purpose  with 
"An  act  relating  to  and  for  the  better  regulating 
schools  of  learning."  It  was  a  blow  aimed  directly 
at  the  efforts  of  the  Separates  to  provide  a  certain 
amount  of  education  for  their  preachers.  It  for- 
bade the  establishment  of  such  a  school  or  academy 
for  the  education  of  young  persons,  without  per- 
mission of  the  Assembly,  under  severe  penalties;  a 
permission  certain  not  to  be  granted  to  the  Separates. 
If  such  a  school  were  established,  the  officers  were  to 
make  inspection  and  proceed  with  such  scholars  and 
teachers  according  to  the  law  relating  to  transient 
persons.  The  same  act  provided  that  no  person 
who  had  not  graduated  at  some  Protestant  college 
should  take  the  benefit  of  the  laws  of  government 
respecting  the  settlement  and  estate  of  ministers. 
That  is,  there  must  be  an  educated  ministry.  But  the 
legislature  would  not  allow  the  Separates  to  estab- 
lish schools  for  that  purpose.  Their  young  people 
were  not  allowed  in  the  schools  sanctioned  by  the  es- 
tablished churches  unless  they  ceased  to  be  Sepa- 
rates. Every  effort  which  they  put  forth  to  secure 
for  their  preachers  even  a  modicum  of  education,  was 
headed  off  by  the  civil  authorities.  The  only  course 
left  open  to  them  was,  either  to  defy  the  law,  or  be 
content  with  an  uneducated  ministry. 

To  the  government  of  the  Colony  of  Connecticut 
the  New  Lights  were  simply  outlaws,  excluded  from 


Their  Persecutions  ill 

the  privileges  granted  to  other  dissenting  bodies. 
They  were  rebels  against  the  standing  order.  The 
severest  measures  were  therefore  taken  against  them, 
and  were  executed  with  unsparing  vigor;  the  officers 
of  the  law  forgetting  that  they  were  descended  from 
men  who  had  suffered  like  persecutions  at  the  hands 
of  another  Establishment  in  England.  Both  the  leg- 
islature and  the  clergy  joined  hands  as  had  been 
done  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  in  England, 
in  efforts  to  suppress  zealous  preachers,  as  if  to  pre- 
sent the  truth  directly  to  men's  consciences  were  a 
crime.  Trumbull  says,   "Experimental  religion, 

and  zeal  and  engagedness  in  preaching,  and  in  serv- 
ing God  were  termed  enthusiasm."  And  because 
of  the  errors  which  were  developed,  and  because  of 
unreasoning  opposition  these  were  called  the  work 
of  the  devil.  The  clergy  persuaded  the  legislature 
to  brand  itinerating,  or  preaching  in  other  than  the 
appointed  places  or  by  any  but  regularly  ordained 
preachers,  or  in  the  parish  of  another  minister  with- 
out his  consent,  a  misdemeanor,  liable  to  punishment. 
Men  were  suspended  from  the  communion  of  the 
regular  churches,  sometimes  by  vote  of  the  church, 
often  by  the  act  of  the  minister  alone  who  did  not 
take  the  trouble  to  consult  the  church,  because  the 
offending  members  had  been  'to  hear  some  of  the  zeal- 
ous preachers.  David  Brainerd  was  expelled  from 
Yale  college  for  the  alleged  crime  of  casting  reflec- 
tions on  the  religious  character  of  his  tutor, 
Chauncey  Whittlesey,  and  for  attending  a  Separate 


H2  The  Separates 

meeting.  Justices  of  the  peace,  and  other  officers 
of  the  law,  who  were  known  to  be  "New  Lights,"  or 
favorable  to  them,  were  summarily  deprived  of  their 
offices.  Men  of  substance  and  character,  who  were 
elected  by  their  townsmen  to  represent  them  in  the 
legislature,  were  refused  their  seats  if  it  were  found 
that  they  were  connected  with  the  "rebellious" 
Separates.  The  clergy  excluded  from  their  pulpits 
men  to  whom,  in  ordination,  they  had  given  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship — men  sound  in  doctrine, 
correct  in  life,  zealous  in  preaching — because  they 
preferred  the  Cambridge  to  the  Saybrook  Platform. 
Men  were  put  in  prison  and  kept  there  because  they 
refused  to  pay  the  minister's  rate.  Often  helpless 
women  and  children  were  left  in  destitute  circum- 
stances, with  no  means  of  support,  because  the  hus- 
band and  father  had  been  hurried  off  to  jail  to  suffer 
the  penalty  for  failing  to  pay  the  minister's  rate. 
Frequently  a  poor  man's  only  cow,  or  the  winter's 
supply  of  food,  was  taken  by  the  merciless  collector, 
and  the  family  of  young  children  were  left  to  suffer 
hunger  and  cold.  Elisha  Paine,  the  most  educated 
and  cultivated  of  the  Separate  preachers,  removed  to 
Long  Island.  On  returning,  in  mid-winter,  for  his 
goods  and  stock,  he  was  seized  and  put  in  confine- 
menit  for  months  in  Windham  county  jail  because 
he  had  not  paid  the  rates  due  the  minister  of  the 
established  church  in  Canterbury.  In  Milford,  Rev. 
Samuel  Whittlesey  was  settled  over  the  regular 
church,  against  the  protest  of  a  large  part  of  the 


Their  Persecutions  113 

members.  They  withdrew,  and  called  themselves 
Presbyterians.  They  sent  to  New  Jersey  for  Rev. 
Samuel  Finley  to  become  their  minister.  This  was 
against  the  law.  Several  times  he  was  arrested  and 
transported  from  the  colony  as  a  vagrant.  The 
character  of  the  man  may  be  judged  from  the  fact 
that  he  was  afterwards  president  of  Princeton  Col- 
lege. For  twelve  years  the  people  who  separated 
from  Mr.  Whittlesey's  church  were  compelled  to 
pay  rates  to  him,  and  for  repairs  on  the  meeting- 
house which  they  never  entered.  "The  Association 
of  New  Haven  County  took  up  the  matter,  and  for- 
mally resolved  that  no  member  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  Brunswick  should  be  admitted  into  any  of  their 
pulpits,  till  satisfaction  had  been  made  for  sending 
Mr.  Finley  to  preach  within  their  bounds."  The 
principal  cause  of  this  summary  proceeding  against 
Mr.  Finley  significantly  points  out  the  spiritual  state 
in  which  the  churches  of  New  Haven  Association 
were.  It  was  said  that  his  preaching  was  "greatly 
disquieting  and  disturbed  the  people."  One  can- 
not but  call  to  mind  the  commotion  which  Paul's 
preaching  caused  at  Thessalonica,  among  the  Jews 
of  the  established  order.  The  great  apostle  was  hur- 
ried out  of  town  as  a  vagrant.  Vigorous,  direct, 
plain  preaching  is  apt  to  disquiet  and  disturb  people. 
The  high-handed  manner  in  which  the 
Separates  of  Canterbury  were  treated  is  a 
most  conspicuous  illustration  of  the  intolerant, 
bigoted     and     unreasonable     spirit     which     then 


ii4  The  Separates 

prevailed     in     the     established     churches.  But 

one  incident  will  be  cited  here.  The  rest  of  the 
sitory  will  be  told  in  narrating  the  organization  of 
the  Separate  church  in  that  place.  Mr.  Cleaveland 
was  a  man  of  prominence  and  note  in  that  town.  As 
a  member  of  the  regular  church,  he  opposed  the 
settlement  of  Mr.  Cogswell,  in  1744.  He,  with  a 
majority  of  the  members,  withdrew  from  the  old 
church,  and  they  instituted  worship  by  themselves. 
Mr.  Cleaveland  had  two  sons  in  Yale  College.  In 
1744,  while  at  home  during  the  summer  vacation, 
the  sons  most  naturally  attended  divine  service  with 
their  father.  One  of  the  sons,  who  was  a  member 
of  the  regular  church,  partook  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per. On  their  return  to  college,  they  were  expelled 
for  the  crime  of  attending  a  Separate  meeting  with 
their  parents.  This  was  done  in  accordance  with  a 
vote  of  the  legislature  in  May,  1742.  This  action 
was  taken  November  19,  1744.  Three  reasons  were 
recited  for  taking  it;  all  of  them  based  upon  the 
action  of  the  people  in  Canterbury  to  which 
Mr.  Cleaveland's  sons  were  not  even  remotely 
a  party.  Bust  because  the  rector  of  the  Col- 
lege and  the  tutors  judged  that  Mr.  Cogswell  was 
the  sufficiently  qualified  preacher  in  Canterbury; 
and  because  they,  the  faculty,  could  see  no  good 
reason  why  the  Separates  of  Canterbury  should  re- 
fuse to  hear  Mr.  Cogswell;  and  because  the  faculty 
judged  that  no  one  "in  any  parish  or  society  have 
any  right  or  warrant  to  appoint  any  house  or  place 


Their  Persecutions  115 

for  worship  on  the  Sabbath  distinct  and  separate 
from  and  in  opposition  to  the  meeting-house,  the 
place  appointed  by  the  general  assembly,  and  the  par- 
ish," therefore  it  was  judged  "by  the  rector  and  tu- 
tors, that  the  said  John  and  Ebenezer  Cleaveland  . 
in  attending  upon  the  preaching  of  lay  exhort- 
ers,  as  aforesaid,  have  acted  contrary  to  the  rules  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  laws  of  this  Colony,  and  the 
college,  and  that  the  said  Cleavelands  shall  be  pub- 
licly admonished  for  their  faults;  and  if  they  shall 
continue  to  justify  themselves,  and  refuse  to  make 
acknowledgement,  they  shall  be  expelled."  In  about 
a  week  John  Cleaveland  presented  a  reply  in 
which  he  said  that  he  did  not  know  that 
he  was  transgressing  any  law  of  God,  of  the 
colony,  or  of  the  college,  and  he  begged 
that  his  ignorance  might  be  accepted  as  his 
apology.  But  this  did  not  suffice.  The  faculty  could 
see  nothing  in  his  apology  but  justification  of  his 
wrong-doing.  The  law  of  the  college  provided 
"that  no  scholar  upon  the  Lord's  day,  or  another 
day,  under  pretence  of  religion,  shall  go  to  any  pub- 
lic or  private  meeting,  not  established  or  allowed 
by  public  authority,  or  approved  by  the  president, 
under  penalty  of  a  fine,  confession,  public  admoni- 
tion, or  otherwise  according  to  the  state  and  de- 
merit of  the  offence."  These  young  men  ought  to 
have  known  better,  if  they  did  not.  Therefore  they 
were  expelled.  If  they  had  not  sinned,  the  people 
in  Canterbury  had.     The  faculty  could  not  make  an 


n6  The  Separates 

example  of  the  people  in  Canterbury,  but  they  could 
of  the  young  men. 

The  expulsion  of  these  students  for  their  alleged 
offence,  created  pretty  wide  and  deep  indignation. 
Their  treatment  was  considered  partial,  severe  and 
unjust.  It  was  believed  by  a  good  many  that  men 
had  a  right  to  worship  God  in  such  manner,  at  such 
times,  and  in  such  places,  as  they  pleased.  This  was 
what  the  Separates  stood  for.  It  was  for  this  right 
that  they  were  persecuted  at  the  instigation  of  an 
establishment  as  iron-handed,  as  merciless,  as  nar- 
row and  as  bigoted  and  cruel  as  the  Puritans  and 
Pilgrims  of  the  seventeenth  century  encountered  in 
England. 

These  people  took  issue  with  the  state  at  another 
point,  and  stubbornly  maintained  it  till  their  view 
gained  the  day.  They  denied,  and  would  not  submit 
to  the  right  of  the  civil  authorities  to  tax  them  for 
the  support  of  the  churches  whose  worship  they  did 
not  attend  and  whose  benefits  they  did  not  enjoy. 
They  denied  the  right  of  the  state  to  exercise  juris- 
diction in  matters  of  conscience  and  of  religious 
convictions.  Therefore  they  did  not  believe  in  a 
State  Church,  nor  in  compulsory  taxation  for  the 
support  of  any  church.  In  this  respect  they  were 
far  in  advance  of  their  times.  They  stedfastly  re- 
fused to  pay  rates  for  the  maintenance  of  the  es- 
tablished churches.  In  this  it  must  be  said  that  they 
followed  the  example  of  the  Separatists  of  the  seven- 
teenth cenltury.       And,  in  the  treatment  which  they 


Their  Persecutions  117 

visited  upon  the  Separates  of  Connecticut,  the  de- 
scendants of  those  of  the  seventeenth  century  imi- 
tated the  men  who  persecuted  their  fathers  and 
drove  them  out  of  England. 

Because  they  refused  to  pay  the  church  rates  their 
property  was  often  seized  and  sold  under  the  ham- 
mer, often  ruining  families  and  stripping  them  of 
all  their  worldly  estate.  In  a  letter  dated  May  13, 
1752,  addressed  by  some  of  Ithe  Separates  to  the 
general  assembly  of  the  Colony,  they  say : 

We  are  of  that  number  who  soberly  dissent  from 
the  Church  established  by  Connecticut  and  though 
we  have  no  design  to  act  in  contempt  of  any  lawful 
authority,  or  to  disturb  any  religious  society,  but  on- 
ly to  worship  God  according  to  rules  he  has  given  us 
in  his  word  in  that  way  now  called  Separation,  yet 
have  we  suffered  the  loss  of  much  of  our  goods,  par- 
ticularly because  we  could  not  in  conscience  pay 
minister's  rates,  it  appearing  to  us  very  contrary 
to  the  way  that  the  Lord  hath  ordained  even  the 
present  way  in  which  the  ministry  are  maintained — 
Poor  men's  estates  taken  away  and  sold  for  less  than 
a  quarter  of  their  value,  and  no  overplus  returned, 
as  hath  been  the  case  of  your  Honor's  poor  inform- 
ers; yea,  poor  men's  cows  taken  away  when  they 
had  but  one  for  the  support  of  their  families,  and 
the  children  crying  for  milk  and  could  get  none,  be- 
cause the  collector  had  taken  their  cow  for  minister's 
rates. 

Not  only  so,  but  when  the  property  was  not  suf- 
ficient, men  were  seized  and  cast  into  prison,  where 
they  were  compelled  to  lie  for  weeks   and   often 


n8  The  Separates 

monlths  at  a  time,  while  their  families  were  left  to 
suffer.  They  were  not  far  wrong  in  saying  that  it 
could  not  have  been  in  the  mind  of  God  that  the 
gospel  of  peace  should  be  supported  by  methods  so 
cruel,  so  high-handed  and  so  outrageous.  It  is  said 
of  one  of  these  men  that,  though  abundantly  able 
to  pay  the  tax,  he  refused,  because  he  insisted  that 
it  was  wrong,  and  said  that  he  would  rot  in  jail  be- 
fore he  would  violate  his  own  conscience  and  pay 
the  abominated  rate.  After  a  time,  however,  when 
it  seemed  that  he  would  rot  in  jail,  because  neither 
he  nor  the  authorities  would  yield,  his  wife  paid  the 
rate  and  he  was  released.  The  laws  enacted  and 
executed  to  suppress  Separatism  were,  Trumbull 
tells  us,  sevrere  and  unprecedented.  "There  were  no 
such  laws  in  any  of  the  other  colonies,  nor  were 
there  in  Great  Britain." 

After  much  endurance  of  the  severe  and  un- 
reasonable execution  of  the  law,  compelling  all  Con- 
gregationalists  'to  accept  the  Saybrook  Platform  and 
pay  rates  to  support  the  stated  ministry,  or  suffer 
the  penalty,  the  Preston  church  took  the  lead  in  ad- 
dressing the  colonial  legislature  to  plead  for  exemp- 
tion and  redress.     The  memorial  was  as  follows : — 

To  the  Honourable  ye  General  Assembly  of  ye 
Colony  of  Connecticut  to  be  convened  at  New  Haven 
In  sd  Colony  on  the  Second  ithirsday  of  October  A. 
D.  1 75 1  the  Memorial  of  John  Avery  and  others 
the  Subscribers  hereunto  Humbly  Shueth  that  your 
Memorialists  live  Some  of  us  within  the  first,  and 


Their  Persecutions  119 

some  of  us   within  the   Second   Eccleciastical    So- 
cietys  In  the  Town  of  Preston  Some  few  within  the 
Second  Society  In  Groton  and  Some  few  within  the 
South  Society  in  Norwich  and  Some  In  the  Second 
Society  of  Stonington,  that  we  are  that  one  of  the 
Very  Many  Sects  of  Professors  of  Christianity  that 
are  Commonly  Called  Separates  that  we  Have  truly 
and  Contientiously  Desented  and  Separated  from  all 
the  Chirches  and  Religious  Societyes  within  whose 
limits  we  live  That  we  are  Setteled  according  to  the 
Present      Establishment      of      this      Government, 
that     our     Habitations     are     Generally     Compact 
none    of    us    liveing    more    than    7    or    8    miles 
from    the     Place    of    our    Public    worship    most 
of     us     within     Two     Miles,     that     the     Number 
of  families  Is  About  forty  and  the  Number  of  Soules 
about  300,  of  which  there  are  more  than  fifty  Church 
Members  all  belonging  to  our  Communion  and  of 
our  Profession  that  we  Have  at  our  own  Cost  Set- 
tled a  Minister  &  bult  a  Meeting  House  for  Divine 
worship    &   have   long   since   been    Imbodied    Into 
Church  Estate  that  Nevertheless  we  are  Compelled 
to  pay  towards  fthe  Support  of  the  Ministry  &  for 
the  b'ilding  of  Meeting  Houses  In  these  Societyes 
from  which  we  have  Respectively  Sepperated  and 
Desented  as  aforsesd  and  for  our  Neglect  to  Make 
Payment  of  Such  Raltes  we  have  Many  of  us  been 
Imprisoned  others  have  had  their  Estates  Torn  & 
sold  to  the  olmost  ruining  of  some  familyes  where- 
fore we  Intreat  the  attention  of  this  Honnourable 
Assembly  and  Pray  Your  Honnours  to  Suffer  us  to 
Say  that  we  always  have  &  for  the  future  most 
Chearfully  Shall  Contribute  our  Proportion  toards 
the  Support  of  Civil  Government  &  we  not  only 
Prise  &  value  but  Humbly  Claim  and  Chalenge  our 


120  The  Separates 

Rite  In  the  Immunities  of  the  Present  Constitution. 

Our  Religion  or  Principles  are  no  ways  Subver- 
sive of  Government  and  we  are  not  only  Inclining 
but  Engaging  to  Support  It — and  their  Is  no  Dif- 
ference between  us  and  other  Members  of  the  Com- 
munity but  whaJt  is  Merely  Ecclesiastical  In  which 
Respect  also  they  Differ  one  from  another  &  the 
whole  Christian  World  no  less. 

Our  Religious  Sentiments  and  way  of  worship 
No  ways  affect  the  State. 

We  are  as  Industerous  In  our  business  and  as 
Punctual  in  our  Contracts  as  If  we  were  Anabap- 
tists or  Quakers  and  we  Challenge  to  hold  enjoy  and 
Improve  what  Is  our  own  by  the  Same  Rules  and 
Laws  as  all  other  Denominations  of  Christians  Do. 

And  we  Suppose  their  is  (In  the  nature  of  things) 
no  Reason  we  Should  maintain  &  Support  any 
Religion  or  way  of  worship  but  what  we  our  Selves 
Embrace  and  Propose  to  receve  the  advantage  of 
and  that  No  body  has  rite  to  Impede  or  Hinder  us 
In  that  way  of  worship  which  in  our  Condenses  we 
think  (to  be  Right  for  us  In  all  matters  Civil  we  are 
accountible  to  the  State  So  in  all  Matters  of  wor- 
ship we  are  accountible  to  him  who  Is  the  object 
of  It.  to  whom  alone  we  must  stand  or  fall  and  on 
these  Principles  are  founded  all  acts  of  Toleration. 
Your  Memorialists  therefore  humbly  Intreat  the  In- 
terposition and  Protection  of  this  honnourable 
Assembly  that  your  honnours  would  order  and 
Grant  that  your  Memorialists  and  all  such  as  ad- 
here to  or  shall  be  Joined  &  attend  the  Publick 
worship  with  them  may  for  the  future  be  Released 
and  Exemted  from  Paying  Taxes  for  the  Bulding 
of  Metinghouses  or  for  the  Support  of  the  min- 
istry in  any  of  the  Societyes  from  which  we  have 


Their  Persecutions  121 

Sepperated  (within  the  compas  of  eight  miles  from 
the  place  of  Publick  worship  or  Such  other  Lim- 
mits  as  your  honnours  Shall  See  fit)  or  that  your 
honnours  would  grant  us  the  Same  Ease  and 
Liberty  as  by  law  is  Provided  for  the  Ease  of  Ana- 
baptists and  Quakers  or  otherwise  Grant  Such 
Relief  as  in  your  wisdom  you  Shall  Judge  Just 
and  your  Memorialists  are  Ready  to  Qualify  them- 
selves according  to  the  act  of  Toleration. 

And  as  In  Duty  Bound  Ever  Pray. 

Dated  ye  10th  Day  of  September  A.  D.  1751. 

This  document  is  signed  by  thirty-three  memor- 
ialists, eight  of  whom  were  descendants  of  Thomas 
Park,  originally  of  New  London,  who  was  a  char- 
ter member,  and  one  of  the  first  deacons  of  the  old 
church  in  Preston.  As  we  read  this  document  at 
this  distance,  no  good  reason  appears  why  the 
legislature  should  not  have  granted  the  prayer  of 
the  memorialists.  By  a  document  dated  Septem- 
ber 26,  1 75 1,  the  sheriff  was  directed  to  summon 
the  inhabitants  of  the  parishes,  or  societies  named, 
to  appear  before  the  General  Assembly  at  New 
Haven,  "on  the  Tuesday  Next  after  S'd  thirsday," 
to  show,  if  there  were  any  reason,  why  the  prayer 
of  the  foregoing  memorial  should  not  be  granted. 
He  was  also  directed  to  put  "a  tru  and  attested 
Copy"  of  the  memorial  into  the  hand  of  the  Clerk 
of  each  society  named  in  it.  Nothing  in  the  Co- 
lonial Records  as  published  shows  whether  this 
memorial  was  presented.  If  it  was  it  was  evidently 
refused   and   the   relief   sought  was   not   obtained. 


122  The  Separates 

For  the  memorialists  did  not  come  within  the  limits 
of  those  who  might  expedt  indulgence.  In  Massa- 
chusetts, a  hundred  years  before,  the  Quakers  and 
others  suffered  for  their  non-conformity.  Now, 
in  Connecticut,  the  tables  were  turned.  The 
Quakers  and  others  secured  indulgence,  while 
Congregationalists,  Whose  chief  sin  was  that  they 
took  the  Cambridge  rather  than  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form, suffered  severe  persecutions,  and  felt  the 
sharp  edge  of  the  law,  and  the  sharper  edge  of 
ecclesiastieism  turned  againsit  them. 

But  the  Preston  Separates  had  the  courage  of 
their  convictions.  They  were  not  to  be  discour- 
aged by  a  single  denial.  So,  January  17,  1753, 
another  effort  of  like  character  was  made.  For 
the  church  met  to  consult  "whether  we  ought  not 
to  send  to  our  Cyvil  Rulers  :  to  Request  them  to  put 
an  end  Ito  the  oppression :  for  it  is  very  Greate  and 
Many  Suffer."  A  meeting  of  representatives  of  the 
various  Separate  churches  was  held  at  Norwich, 
March  21st  of  the  same  year.  It  was  the  unanimous 
opinion  that  it  was  "their  Duty  to  Send  first  to  our 
General  Assembly :  and  if  Not  Heard  to  Send  to 
England.  Ye  Chhs  Chose  men  as  overseers  to 
Prepare  a  Memorial  according  to  what  was  Pur- 
posed to  lay  before  ye  assembly  Next  May :  ye  over- 
seers were  Solomon  Paine;  Ebenezer  Frothing- 
ham  (Wethersfield:)  Jedediah  Hyde:  Elexander 
Miller  and  Paul  Parke."  A  formal  memorial  was 
accordingly  presented  to  the  legislature  of  the  col- 


Their  Persecutions  123 

ony  in  May,  signed  by  the  representatives  of  more 
than  twenty  Separate  churches.  In  it  they  de- 

clared that  it  was  against  their  consciences  "that 
ministers  salaries  be  dependent  on  human  laws." 
They  further  said  "we  pray  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Toleration  act :  we  are  imprisoned,  our  property  is 
taken,  from  which  burdens  we  pray  to  be  released." 
Again  this  most  reasonable  and  just  petition  was 
denied.  The  thumb-screws  were  given  an  extra 
turn.  The  persecution  went  on  without  relenting. 
The  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  throne  was  carried 
out.  In  June,  1754,  Solomon  Paine  and  Ebenezer 
Frothingham  were  chosen  messengers  to  go  to  Eng- 
land and  present  the  memorial  at  the  Court  of 
George  II.  Paine  died  in  October  of  that  year. 
The  mission  was  delayed.  Another  fruitless  appeal 
was  made  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the  colony. 
Finally,  in  1756,  new  messengers  were  appointed 
who  took  the  appeal  for  toleration  to  England  and 
submitted  it  to  the  parliamentary  "Committee  for  the 
Dissenters."  The  last  reference  to  the  matter  in  the 
records  of  the  Preston  church  is  the  following : 

December  29th,  1756.  This  chlh  met  by  appoint- 
ment— first  heard  a  Proclamation  appointing  a  fast 
in  those  Oh'h  that  agreed  to  send  to  England;  a 
petition  for  liberty  &c.  by  these  agents :  Mr.  Bliss 
Willobey,  and  Mr.  Moses  Mars — ye.  Chh  agreed  to 
keep  this  day. 

But  the  mission  failed  in  great  measure.  The 
committee,   to   whom   the   petition   was   submitted, 


124  The  Separates 

expressed  great  surprise  that  the  sons  of  the  men 
who  had  fled  from  persecution  in  England  should 
have  framed  a  similar  and  an  equally  galling  yoke 
for  dissenters  from  the  established  church  of 
Connecticut.  This  was  deemed  a  violation  of  the 
charter  righltis  of  the  colony.  It  was  feared  that  if 
the  petition  were  presented  to  the  king,  the  charter 
would  be  withdrawn.  The  messengers  returned, 
bearing  a  letter  from  the  chairman  of  the  Parlia- 
mentary committee  censuring  the  colonial  govern- 
ment. This,  together  with  the  disturbance  of  the 
French  and  Indian  war,  secured  a  modification  of  the 
action  of  the  colonial  government,  so  that  the 
memorialists  did  not  bring  a  suit  for  their  rights 
as  they  were  advised  to  do.  A  petition  for  exemp- 
tion from  paying  rates  to  the  old  society  was  first 
accorded  to  the  Separates  of  South  Killingly  in 
1755.  Thenceforward  relief  was  grudgingly  grant- 
ed, until,  in  1784,  the  obnoxious  act,  making  the 
Saybrook  Platform  obligatory,  was  repealed. 

But  this  leniency  was  too  late  to  save  the  move- 
ment. Its  leaders  were  gone.  Its  churches  were 
wasted.  The  people  were  demoralized.  A  few 
churches  struggled  on  and  kept  their  organized  life 
into  the  nineteenth  century.  But  for  the  grealt  body 
of  them  the  end  was  a  bitter  defeat.  Their  san- 
guine hope  for  a  pure  church  ended  in  disappoint- 
ment. They  made  a  heroic  stand  for  a  correct 
principle.  Their  battle  was  fought  for  what  was 
right.     But  it  soon  degenerated  into  a  quarrel  with 


Their  Persecutions  125 

the  tax  collector,  with  /tlhe  odds  all  against  them. 
Their  conflict  deserved  a  better  result,  which  it 
would  have  reached  if  there  had  been  weightier  in- 
fluences behind  it.  Their  failure  by  no  means 
proves  that  their  position  was  wrong.  The  move- 
ment would  have  reached  farther,  and  accomplished 
more,  if  it  had  been  freer  from  the  extravagances 
which  attached  to  it,  like  barnacles  to  a  ship,  and  if 
it  had  had  a  more  intelligent  leadership. 

The  Connecticut  Separates  were  not  always  wise 
or  broad,  but  they  were  not  the  lawless  men  and 
women,  defiant  of  law  and  order,  which  their  treat- 
ment might  lead  us  to  suppose  them  to  have  been. 
They  simply  stood  for  conscientious  convictions,  for 
which  they  could  give  a  reason.  They  hoped  and 
labored  for  a  pure  church.  Said  Dr.  Button,  of  New 
Haven,  their  "motive  was,  to  say  the  least,  honor- 
able to  their  Christian  zeal  and  devotion."  Their 
worship  was  called  irregular.  But  it  was  so  only 
because  the  law,  which  was  a  gross  violation  of 
human  rights,  chose  to  call  it  so.  None  of  the 
Connecticut  Separates  suffered  martyrdom  like 
those  of  a  century  and  a  half  before  in  England. 
But  they  suffered  about  everything  else.  If  the 
blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church,  we 
may  say  that  the  persecution  of  the  Separates,  with 
their  simple  and  free  polity,  was  the  germ  of  that 
New  England  Congregationalism  which  is  to-day 
our  pride. 


VI 

WHERE  THEY  WERE  AND  WHAT 
BECAME  OF  THEM 

The  principal  scene  of  this  movement  was  in 
Connecticut,  after  about  1741.  But  before  this  date 
there  were  not  wanting  evidences  of  protest  against 
the  practice  of  the  Half- Way  Covenant  in  the  divi- 
sion of  churches  over  it.  The  principles  of  the 
Separates  had  been  in  the  air  for  more  than  three 
quarters  of  a  century  when  the  decisive  cleavage 
came. 

One  of  the  earliest  instances  of  protest  against 
the  practice  of  'the  Half-Way  Covenant  was  in 
Bran  ford  in  1665,  severity-five  years  before  the 
real  Separate  movement,  but  which  was  yet  of  the 
same  spirit.  After  the  union  of  the  New  Haven 
and  Connecticut  colonies,  under  the  charter  recently 
obtained  from  Charles,  "Mr.  Pierson  and  almost  his 
whole  church  and  congregation,"  says  Trumbull, 
"were  so  displeased  that  they  soon  removed  into 
Newark,  New  Jersey.  They  carried  off  the  records 
of  the  church  and  town,  and  after  it  had  been  settled 
about  twenty-five  years  left  it  almost  without  inhabi- 
tant." No  pastor  was  settled  in  Bran  ford  to  take 
the  place  of  Mr.  Pierson  for  more  than  twenty 
years.  The  reason   for  this   exodus  was,   that, 

126 


Whore  They   Were,  etc.  127 

in  the  Connecticut  colony,  the  Half -Way  Covenant 
was  approved  by  the  civil  authorities,  and  Mr.  Pier- 
son  and  his  people  refused  to  live  under  such  juris- 
diction. 

About  1 667  the  church  in  Windsor  became  divid- 
ed over  'the  settlement  of  a  colleague  for  the  pastor, 
Rev.  Mr.  Warham,  who  had  become  advanced  in 
years.  Hot  words  passed  between  the  contending 
parties.  Matters  came  to  such  a  pass  that  permis- 
sion was  given  by  the  legislature  to  the  minority  to 
form  a  distinct  church.  Mr.  Benjamin  Woodbridge 
was  called  and  settled  in  1668.  After  twelve  years 
Mr.  Woodbridge  was  dismissed  by  order  of  the 
court,  and  the  church  was  disbanded  to  unite  with 
the  First  Church,  and  thus  the  breach  was  healed. 

In  1670  the  Second  Church  in  Hartford  with- 
drew from  the  First  Church,  under  the  lead  of  Rev. 
John  Whiting.  The  cause  of  the  separation  was  a 
difference  between  the  views  of  Rev.  Mr.  Haynes 
and  Rev.  Mr.  Whiting  as  to  the  question,  who  are 
fit  subjects  for  membership  in  the  visible  church. 
Mr.  Whiting  and  his  followers  were  zealous  for  the 
strict  Congregational  way  of  Hooker  and 
others  of  the  early  New  England  clergy,  namely, 
"that  visible  saints  are  the  only  fit  matter, 
and  confederation  the  only  form  of  a  visible  church; 
that  a  competent  number  of  visible  saints,  (with 
(their  seed)  embodied  by  a  particular  covenant,  are 
a  true,  distinct,  and  entire  church ;  that  such  a  par- 
ticular church,  being  organized,  or  having  furnished 


1 28  The  Separates 

itself  with  those  officers  which  Christ  hath  appoint- 
ed, hath  all  power  and  privileges  of  a  church  be- 
longing to  it."  The  special  particulars  in  which 
the  seceders  claimed  "all  power  and  privileges  of 
a  church,"  were,  in  admitting  and  receiving  mem- 
bers, in  dealing  with  offenders  and  in  administering 
and  enjoying  within  itself  "all  other  ecclesiastical 
ordinances."  They  also  held  to  the  autonomy  of  the 
local  church,  to  the  communion  of  churches,  and  to 
the  Congregational  doctrine  of  seeking  the  advice 
of  neighboring  churches,  "in  cases  of  difficulty." 
As  Mr.  Haynes,  the  junior  pastor,  and  a  majority 
of  the  First  Church  of  Hartford  held  to  the  less 
strict  Congregational  way,  Mr.  Whiting,  the  senior 
pastor,  and  thirty-one  members  withdrew  amicably 
and  formed  the  Second  Church  of  Hartford.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  principles  upon  which  Mr. 
Whiting  and  his  followers  withdrew  from  the 
parent  church  were  similar  to  those  given  by  the 
Separates  seventy-five  years  later. 

About  the  same  time  a  controversy  over  the  Half- 
Way  Covenant  divided  the  church  in  Stratford.  It 
broke  out  on  ;the  occasion  of  securing  a  colleague 
for  Rev.  Mr.  Blackman,  the  first  pastor.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  church  and  town  chose  Mr.  Israel 
Chauncey,  son  of  the  President  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege, to  be  their  pastor,  and  he  was  ordained,  says 
Trumbull,  in  1665.  A  large  minority  were  opposed 
to  his  ordination,  and  they  chose  Mr.  Zechariah 
Walker  as  their  pastor,  who  was  ordained  in  the 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  129 

regular  way  about  1667  or  1668.  Both  ministers 
conducted  public  services  in  the  same  house,  at  dif- 
ferent hours.  But  it  was  found  thalt  two  captains 
were  too  many  for  one  ship.  All  attempts  at  re- 
conciliation failed.  A  Second  Church  at  Stratford 
was  organized  and  maintained  till  1672.  They  were 
at  length  excluded  from  the  meeting-house  and  met 
for  worship  in  a  private  dwelling.  Finally  a  new 
township  was  granted  them,  and  they  were 
authorized  to  begin  a  plantation  at  Pom- 
peraug,  now  Woodbury.  About  1673  the  majority 
of  the  new  church  removed  thither  and  became  the 
First  Church  of  Woodbury.  This  gave  peace  to 
Stratford,  and  the  new  church  walked  in  harmony 
among  themselves  and  with  their  sister  churches. 

There  may  have  been  other  cases  of  separation 
for  similar  reasons  in  which  new  churches  were 
formed.  But  these  are  the  most  conspicuous.  They 
did  not  belong  to  the  Separate  movement.  For  there 
was,  then,  no  Saybrook  Platform,  and  no  estab- 
lished order.  Further,  these  separations  were,  for  the 
most  part,  amicably  effected.  Nor  was  the  sepa- 
rating church  compelled  to  pay  taxes  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  church  which  it  had  left.  But  these 
cases  show  that  the  principles  and  spirit  of  Separa- 
tion, as  we  find  it  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  were  in  the  air.  And  these  local  instances 
of  division,  as  it  now  appears,  were  a  prophecy  of 
the  deeper,  wider  cleft  which  would  split  asunder 
the  body  of  the  colonial   churches   when  aroused 


130  The  Separates 

and  stirred  by  the  mighty  power  of  the  Great 
Awakening. 

Elsewhere  than  in  Connecticut,  the  Separate 
movement  gained  a  foothold,  and  its  churches  were 
established.  But  they  were  largely  fruits  of  the  pro- 
test of  the  Separating  churches  of  the  colony  of 
Connecticut  against  the  loose  practices  of  the 
churches  of  the  regular  order.  Before  we  study  the 
case  at  the  storm  center,  let  us  notice  the  effects  at 
the  outermost  edges. 

Separate  Churches  were  formed  in  Rhode 
Island.  In  1724-5,  as  a  result  of  the  labors  of  Sam- 
uel Moody,  a  celebrated  revivalist  of  York,  Maine, 
the  First  Congregational  Church  in  Providence  was 
formed.  Sixteen  persons  constituted  its  member- 
ship. Its  first  pastor  was  Rev.  Josiah  Cotton,  a 
lineal  descendant  of  the  famous  Rev.  John  Cotton 
of  Boston.  For  about  nineteen  years  his  pastorate 
was  prosperous  and  happy  and  his  people  were 
united.  After  the  excitement  which  followed  the 
preaching  of  Whitefield  and  others,  in  the  Great 
Awakening,  about  1740- 1743,  some  of  his  people 
began  to  be  dissatisfied.  They  charged  him  with 
"not  being  evangelical  enough."  They  said  that  he 
was  "an  opposer  of  the  work  of  God's  spirit;" 
probably  because  he  did  not  enter  into  the  revival 
with  such  zeal  as  it  seemed  to  them  to  demand. 
They  also  declared  that  he  was  "a  preacher  of 
damnable  good  works."  The  church  itself  tfhey 
styled    "Babylon,    Egypt,    and    Anti-Christ,    whom 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  131 

God  would  destroy."  They  furthermore  declared 
that  all  good  men  ought  "to  come  out  from  among 
them  and  be  separate."  This  they  proceeded  to  do, 
and  the  church  was  rent  in  twain.  It  was  so  weak- 
ened that  in  about  four  years  Mr.  Cotton  gave  up 
tthe  vain  struggle,  resigned  his  pastorate  and  left 
the  town.  March  7,  1743,  the  half  of  Mr.  Cotton's 
church  which  had  seceded  were  organized  into  a 
"Second,  or  Beneficent  Congregational  Church  of 
Providence."  Punchard  says,  "This  seems  to  have 
been  what  was  known  in  those  days  as  a  'Separate' 
or  'New  Light'  Church."  They  formally  adopted 
(the  Cambridge  Platform,  in  1745,  by  which  they 
signified  their  entire  dissent  from  the  ecclesiastical 
principles  of  the  Saybrook  Platform.  They  first 
called  Elisha  Paine,  of  Canterbury,  Conn.,  to  be- 
come their  pastor,  but  he  declined  the  call.  In  1745 
they  gave  their  approbation  to  Joseph  Snow, 
Jr.,  one  of  their  own  number,  as  a  preacher. 
October  20,  1746,  they  called  him  to  the 
pastorate.  But  he  was  not  ordained  till  Feb- 
ruary, 1747.  He  served  the  church  for  fifty-seven 
years.  He  was  a  carpenter  by  trade,  and  took  the 
lead  in  erecting  a  house  of  worship.  It  was  vari- 
ously called,  "The  New  Light  Meeting  House," 
"The  Tenement  Church,"  "Mr.  Snow's  Meeting 
House."  "Mr.  Snow  was  not  a  liberally  educated 
man,"  says  Dr.  Vose.  "He  was  a  man  of  one  book, 
and  that  the  Bible."  But  he  was  a  man  of  deep 
piety  and  of  great  good  sense.       He  was  acquainted 


132  The  Separates 

with  works  of  theology,  was  sound  in  doctrine,  and 
carefully  improved  his  talents  and  opportunities. 
He  was  an  earnest  preacher,  and  "had  a  bodily  pres- 
ence and  strength  of  lungs  sufficient  to  enforce  his 
preaching  to  the  utmost."  He  died  in  1803,  aged 
eighty-nine,  after  a  ministry  of  nearly  fifty-eight 
years. 

Dr.  Stiles  says  of  Mr.  Snow,  in  his  diary,  that 
he  was  a  private,  illiterate  brother  of  Mr.  Cotton's 
church,  and  that,  "in  1746  he  headed  a  large  separa- 
tion which  almost  broke  up  that  church."  The  year 
was  1743  and  not  1746.  Dr.  Stiles  also  said  of  Mr. 
Snow,  "He  is  loud  and  boisterous,  but  delivers  many 
sound  truths,  and  pretty  well  understands  the  gos- 
pel of  grace,  and  is  of  a  sober,  serious,  exemplary 
life."  "In  1793,"  says  Rev.  J.  G.  Vose,  d.  d., 
"Father  Snow  withdrew  from  the  church  over  which 
he  had  prayerfully  watched  for  half  a  century." 
The  reason  for  this  withdrawal  seems  to  have  been 
that  he  did  not  like  the  doctrines  of  his  successor, 
who  was  more  of  a  Methodist  than  a  Calvinist. 
Hard  words  and  severe  measures  followed.  Mr. 
Snow  rebuked  the  church,  and  the  church  retaliated 
by  suspending  him  from  the  ministry.  Efforts  to- 
ward a  settlement  of  the  trouble  were  unavailing. 
Mr.  Snow,  "followed  by  some  faithful  friends  and 
most  excellent  people,"  withdrew,  "calling  them- 
selves the  true  church  and  taking  with  them  the 
records,  which  were  Mr.  Snow's  private  property, 
as  no  clerk  had  ever  been  appointed."     Professor 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  133 

Dexter,  in  a  foot-note  on  page  114,  volume  I,  of 
Dr.  Stiles'  diary,  says  that  "The  church  thus  sep- 
arated is  now  represented  by  the  Union  Congrega- 
tional  Church,"  of  Providence. 

Under  date  of  January  2,  1769,  the  Beneficent 
church,  of  which  Mr.  Snow  was  the  pastor,  passed  a 
vote  which  points  to  the  method  of  material  support 
adopted  by  it  in  those  early  days.  "The  church  con- 
sidered it  as  the  duty  of  each  male  member,  to  give 
in  a  proper  and  honest  account  of  their  worldly 
circumstances  unto  the  said  seven  brethren,"  whom 
the  church  had  chosen  for  that  purpose,  "to  pro- 
portion, according  to  each  member's  circumstances 
and  abilities,"  the  amount  which  each  ought  to  pay 
for  the  support  of  the  minister  and  the  poor  of  the 
church.  This  "New  Light"  church  is  still,  as  it  al- 
ways has  been,  in  the  ranks  of  our  Congregational 
churches. 

During  the  ten  years  between  1740  and  1750* 
forty-five  Congregational  churches  were  formed  in 
Massachusetts.  Rev.  Joseph  S.  Clark,  d.  d.,  says, 
'*Eight  or  nine  had  their  origin  in  this  spirit  of 
Separatism;  while  more  than  twice  as  many  others 
originating  in  the  same  spirit,  grew  at  length  into 
Baptist  churches."  Rev.  George  Leon  Walker, 

d.  d.,  says,  "The  number  of  such  churches  in  Massa- 
chusetts is  uncertain,  but  the  best  known  among 
them  were  those  of  Attleboro,  Rehoboth,  Middle- 
boro,  Bridgewater,  Grafton,  Sunderland,  Norton, 
Wrentham,  Charlestown  and  Sturbridge."         We 


1 34  The  Separates 

have  definite  information  about  part  of  these  Massa- 
chusetts Separate  churches.  The  church  in  Middle- 
borough  became  divided  over  the  choice  of  a  pastor 
to  succeed  the  Rev.  Peter  Thatcher,  the  third  pastor, 
who  died  April  22,  1744.  The  church  "voted  to 
hear  Mr.  Sylvanus  Conant  four  Sabbaths  upon  pro- 
bation." The  parish  committee  hired  another  man 
to  preach  in  the  meeting-house  on  the  same  days. 
The  church  met  in  another  place  till  Mr.  Conant's 
probation  was  ended,  when  they  chose  him  for  pas- 
tor and  presented  their  choice  to  the  parish.  The 
parish  negatived  the  choice  of  the  church.  How- 
ever, the  latter  called  a  council  of  five  other  churches, 
by  whose  help  Mr.  Conant  was  ordained  as  its  pas- 
tor, March  28,  1745.  The  parish,  with  "less  than 
a  quarter  of  the  church  called  themselves  the  stand- 
ing part  of  it,  and  went  on  and  ordained  another 
minister,  the  next  October,  and  held  the  old  house 
and  ministerial  lands,  and  taxed  all  the  parish  for  his 
support." — Backus.  The  church  built  another 
meeting-house,  and  supported  their  own  minister. 
For  several  years  they  were  able  to  get  no  relief 
from  the  legislature.  This  church  seems  to  have 
become  the  First  Baptist  Church  in  Middleboro, 
January  16,  1756,  over  which  the  pastor,  under  the 
old  regime,  was  installed  June  23  of  the  same  year. 

In  1749  more  than  sixty  of  the  members  of  the 
Separate  church  in  Sturbridge,  including  all  their 
officers,  were  baptized,  and  espoused  the  Baptist 
faith.     In  1751  the  pastor  and  others  of  the  Sepa- 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  135 

rate  church  in  the  joining  borders  of  Bridgewater 
and  Middleboro  were  baptized  and  became  identi- 
fied with  that  denomination.  About  the  same  time 
several  were  immersed  in  Raynham.  In  some  cases 
those  who  had  joined  the  Baptist  fold  continued  to 
commune  with  their  former  pedobaptist  brethren, 
until  it  was  decided  that,  by  such  communion,  they 
recognized  sprinkling  as  baptism,  which  they  could 
not  do  without  violating  their  own  consciences.* 

A  disposition  to  criticize  ministers  was  developed 
among  some  who  were  most  deeply  affected  by  the 
Great  Revival.  In  this  they  were  encouraged  by 
Gilbert  Tennent,  whose  speech  was  not  always 
flavored  and  sweetened  by  honey  from  Hymettus, 
when  he  spoke  of  the  clergymen  who  did  not  enter 
heartily  into  the  religious  awakening.  Sentiments 
of  this  kind  led  to  the  dismission  of  Rev.  Samuel 
Mather  from  the  Second,  or  North  Church  in  Bos- 
ton in  December,  1741.  He,  with  ninety-three 
members,  withdrew  and  formed  a  new  organization, 
over  which  he  was  installed  July  19,  1742.  Dr. 
Joseph  S.  Clark  says  that  this  was  the  tenth  Con- 
gregational church  in  Boston,  and  that  they  "built 
a  meeting  house  on  the  corner  of  North  Bennett 
and  Hanover  Streets."  Mr.  Mather  was  accused  of 
vagueness  in  preaching  some  of  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines, and  with  discouraging  conversions.  The 
real  complaint,  however,  was  Mr.  Mather's  lack  of 
sympathy  with  some  features  of  the  revival.     In 

*I  am  indebted  to  Backus  for  these  facts. 


136  The  Separates 

this  case  the  seceders  were  not  people  unduly  stirred 
by  religious  enthusiasm,  but  the  opposite.  How- 
ever, the  Separation  was  brought  about  by  the  same 
spirit  which  led  the  more  zealous  to  come  out  from 
the  formal,  legal  and  lifeless  churches.  But  in  this 
case  it  was  the  other  man's  ox  which  was  gored. 
They  continued  separate  worship  till  Dr.  Mather 
died  in  1785.  In  accordance  with  his  dying  request 
the  flock  returned  Ito  their  former  fold.  In  1744 
there  was  a  small  secession  from  the  first  church  in 
Plymouth,  which  returned  in  1776.  Whether 
these  separations  were  on  account  of  religious 
scruples,  such  as  often  prompted  such  movements, 
is  not  stated.  But,  as  the  spirit  of  separa- 
tion from  the  churches  of  the  "standing  or- 
der" was  in  the  air,  it  is  probable  that 
such  was  the  case.  January  3,  1746,  nineteen 
disaffected  members  of  the  First  Church  in  New- 
bury withdrew  and  formed  a  separate  organization. 
It  is  now  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  New- 
buryport.  May  22,  1746,  "a  large  secession  from 
the  Second  Church  in  Ipswich  (now  Essex)  was 
effected."  But  in  1774  they  returned  to  the  church 
which  they  had  left.  A  similar  occurrence  took 
place  in  1747  in  Woburn,  the  seceders  returning 
after  a  few  years. 

There  was  not  the  same  persecution  in  Massa- 
chusetts which  we  find  in  Connecticut.  Peo- 
ple were  taxed  to  support  the  churches  of  the 
"standing    order."      This    was    not    a    matter    of 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  137 

choice.  Parish  despotism  was  not  wanting.  But 
the  protests  of  the  Separates  finally  helped  to  liberate 
the  churches  from  this  despotism.  Religious  lib- 
erty made  great  gains.  The  burdens  imposed  by 
(the  "standing  order,"  by  which  "all  who  were  not 
Baptists,  or  something  else  known  as  a  distinct  de- 
nomination," were  compelled  "to  pay  taxes  for  the 
support  of  the  'able,  learned,  Orthodox  minister,' 
whom  the  major  part  of  the  voters  had  settled  over 
them,"  were  at  last  removed,  in  Massachusetts,  and 
all  the  Separates  either  became  Baptists,  or  returned 
to  the  folds  which  they  had  left.  The  controver- 
sies were  not  so  bitter  in  the  Bay  Colony,  and  the 
Separating  brethren  were  not  so  widely  alienated 
as  in  the  Connecticut  colony,  so  that  the  return 
to  the  original  fold  was,  in  most  cases,  not  so  dif- 
ficult. 

There  were  also  a  few  Separate  churches  in  New 
Hampshire,  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania.  About 
1666  some  thirty  families  emigrated  to  New  Jersey 
from  Milford,  in  the  New  Haven  colony,  and  began 
a  Christian  plantation.  The  union  of  the  New 
Haven  and  Connecticut  colonies  was  the  immediate 
cause.  In  New  Haven  it  was  held  that  only  church 
members  should  be  voters;  in  Hartford  the  op- 
posite view  was  held.  In  New  Haven  the  Half- 
Way  Covenant  was  repudiated;  in  Hartford  it 
was  practiced.  These  differences  of  opinion 
operated  powerfully  on  the  minds  of  the  New  Haven 
Christians.       The  dissatisfaction  was  so  great  that 


138  The  Separates 

Ithey  preferred  to  leave  the  colony  and  settle  again  in 
the    wilderness.  Accordingly,    settlements    were 

made  and  churches  planted  in  New  Jersey,  which 
remained  Congregational  churches  of  the  strictest 
sort,  until,  in  most  cases,  they  became  Presbyterian. 

May  26,  1758,  Mr.  Elisha  Paine,  one  of  the  Con- 
necticut Separates,  and  a  leader  in  the  withdrawal 
of  the  Canterbury  church  from  the  established  or- 
der, organized  the  "First  Strict  Congregational 
church  of  Southold,"  afterwards  called  Riverhead, 
L.  I.  In  1783  Daniel  Youngs  was  ordained  pastor  of 
this  church  by  "the  Strict  Congregational  Conven- 
tion of  Connecticut,"  which  seemed  to  exercise  juris- 
diction in  Long  Island.  In  1785  Mr.  Youngs  or- 
ganized a  second  Separate  church  at  Riverhead.  In 
November,  1787,  the  Connecticut  convention  or- 
dained Rev.  Jacob  Corwin  as  its  pastor.  In  Octo- 
ber, 1788,  the  same  body  ordained  Rev.  Noah  Hal- 
lock  as  an  evangelist  on  Long  Island.  In  Septem- 
ber, 1790,  Rev.  Paul  Cuffee,  an  Indian  of  the  Shin- 
necock  tribe,  was  ordained  as  pastor  of  the  Strict 
Congregational  churches  at  Canoe  Place  and  Poose- 
peitauk,  composed  mostly  of  native  Indians.  This 
connection  of  these  churches  of  Long  Island  with 
the  Strict  Congregational  churches  of  Connecticut 
continued  till  1791.  August  26  of  that  year,  after 
much  prayer  and  consideration,  it  was  decided  to 
form  "the  Long  Island  Convention  of  Strict  Con- 
gregational Churches,"  separate  from,  but  like  the 
Connecticut  body.     Revivals  blessed  these  churches, 


Where   They   Were,  etc.  139 

and  large  additions  were  frequently  made  to  them. 
Nearly  two  hundred  were  added  to  the  first  Strict 
Congregational  church  at  Riverhead  during  the  min- 
istry of  Rev.  Daniel  Youngs.  In  1839  there  were 
nine  churches  and  five  ministers  connected  with  the 
Long  Island  Convention,  and  there  was  an  aggre- 
gate of  about  one  thousand  members.  From  Long 
Island  "the  movement  spread  to  other  places  and 
some  churches  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  trace 
their  origin  to  it."  These  churches,  as  we  have 
seen,  were  organized  in  1791,  into  the  "Long  Island 
Convention."  Then  there  was  formed  a  body  known 
as  "The  Long  Island  Association  of  1836-40."  In 
1840  it  was  proposed  to  form  another  "ecclesiastical 
body  which  should  unite  in  one  all  the  Congregation- 
al churches  and  ministers  in  the  county"  of  Suffolk. 
Accordingly,  in  March,  1840,  "The  Long  Island 
Consociation"  was  formed,  which  "absorbed  the  two 
bodies  then  existing;"  that  is,  the  Convention  and 
the  Association.  This,  in  1873,  gave  place  to  "The 
Suffolk  Association  of  Congregational  churches  and 
ministers."  This  accounts  for  the  Separate 
churches  on  Long  Island,  which  sprang  from  the 
Connecticut  convention. 

Eastern  Connecticut  was  the  principal  scene  of 
the  events  narrated  in  the  preceding  chapters,  and 
of  the  origin  of  the  Separate  movement  of  1740  to 
1750.  In  a  few  towns  in  other  parts  of  the  colony, 
Separate  worshiping  assemblies  were  gathered. 
They  were  mostly  confined,  however,  to  about  thirty 


140  The  Separates 

towns  in  New  London  and  Windham  Counties. 
They  finally  were  organized  into  an  ecclesiastical 
body,  known  as  "The  Strict  Congregational  Conven- 
tion of  Connecticut." 

In  1740  there  were  a  few  "New  Lights"  in 
Tolland  who  withdrew  from  the  communion  of  the 
church.  In  1760,  Mr.  Robert  C.  Learned  says, 
there  were  but  few  of  them  remaining.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  they  were  formed  into  a  church. 
There  were  separations  from  the  regular  church  in 
Ashford,  but  no  society  was  organized.  The 
dissenters  joined  either  the  Baptists  or  neighboring 
Separate  churches.  There  was  also  a  considerable 
separation  in  the  second  church  of  Pomfret,  now 
Brooklyn.  In  1 741-2  a  considerable  number  were 
added  to  the  church.  Among  them  were  some  who 
were  eager  to  exercise  their  liberty  of  laboring  and 
exhorting,  and  who  were  in  full  sympathy  with  the 
revival.  These  people  went  so  far  in  the  assertion 
of  their  rights,  as  they  termed  it,  that  they  destroyed 
the  peace  of  the  church.  The  matter  was  taken  up 
for  discipline.  A  meeting  of  the  consociation  was 
called  by  the  church  for  advice.  Ten  ministers, 
with  their  delegates,  met  October  10,  1743,  in  re- 
sponse to  the  summons  of  the  church,  at  the  house 
of  Rev.  Ephraim  Avery,  the  pastor.  The  separat- 
ing brethren  were  invited  to  appear  before  them 
and  give  their  reasons  for  the  course  which  they  had 
taken.  They,  however,  believing  that  they  had 
gone  in  the  path  of  duty,  "and  not  seeing  wherein 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  141 

the  constitution  of  the  Consociation  was  granted  by 
the  Word  of  God,  could  not  in  conscience  comply." 
Admonition  followed  admonition,  but  to  no  purpose. 
The  final  issue  was  that  fourteen  of  these  brethren, 
refusing  to  retract  or  ask  the  church  for  mercy,  were 
publicly   excommunicated.  Eleven    others    were 

tried  for  persisting  in  separation,  and  were  formally 
admonished  April  13,  1748.  None  of  them,  how- 
ever, were  present  to  hear  the  admonition;  and 
when  it  was  carried  to  their  homes  some  refused  to 
touch  it,  others  cast  it  into  the  fire.  These 
Separates  were  not  gathered  into  a  society,  but  most 
of  them  united  with  the  church  in  Canterbury. 
Some  of  the  more  prominent  ones  were  finally  taken 
back  into  the  fellowship  of  the  regular  church. 
This  defection  did  not  seriously  affect  the  strength 
and  prosperity  of  ifche  Mortlake  Parish,  as  the  Second 
Church  of  Pomfret  was  called. 

Rev.  Jacob  Eliot  of  Goshen  had  some  trouble  in 
his  parish  with  the  "New  Lights."  I  am  indebted 
to  Rev.  John  Avery  of  Norwich  for  the  following 
facts  taken  from  Mr.  Eliot's  diary:  Mr.  Eliot,  in 
April,  1742,  speaks  of  two  of  his  parishioners, — a 
man  and  his  wife,  being  "distracted  by  New 
Light."  And,  on  a  loose  scrap  of  paper,  which 
was  probably  drawn  up  about  the  same  time,  he  gives 
a  somewhat  lengthy  chapter  of  Remarkables  in 
time  of  Nczv  Lights.  In  it  he  speaks  of  their 
"remaining  in  church  on  the  Sabbath,  singing  and 
exhorting,  after  the  public  service  was  closed";    of 


142  The  Separates 

their  being  affected  with  "trances  and  extraordinary 
fits,  jumping  up  at  full  length";  of  their  pretending 
to  ''read  in  the  dark";  of  their  claiming  that  "the 
devil  had  appeared  in  Colchester;"  of  one  "Deni- 
son's  laying  his  hands  upon  a  man's  head  and  his 
falling  down  and  lying  apparently  dead  at  his  feet 
for  a  while";  of  "a  man  in  Norwich  hearing  a  voice 
telling  him  that  if  he  would  fall  in  with  these  ex- 
traordinary things  he  would  be  as  good  a  Christian 
as  any  of  them,  and  a  contrary  voice  in  the  other 
ear  not  to  mind  the  devil  but  read  I  Jn  4:  i";  of 
"one  of  his  own  parishioners  telling  him  audibly  be- 
fore many  that  he  (Mr.  Eliot)  was  an  opposer  of 
the  work  of  God,  and  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and 
knew  in  his  own  conscience  it  was  so,  and  that  there 
never  was  such  a  pope  in  the  world." 

"Mr.  Eliot's' trouble  with  the  New  Lights  seems  to 
have  been  located  for  the  most  part  in  the  north  part 
(now  Exeter)  of  his  parish,  whose  inhabitants  he 
habitually  speaks  of  as  'The  North  Enders.'  Here 
undoubtedly  was  felt  in  some  degree  the  influence 
of  Pomeroy  of  Hebron  and  Wheelock  of  Lebanon 
Crank  (now  Columbia),  both  of  whom,  probably, 
were  about  as  much  inclined  to  wink  at  even  the  un- 
justifiable proceedings  of  the  New  Lights  as  Eliot 
was  to  frown  upon  them." 

In  several  other  communities  there  were  similar 
cases  of  the  separation  of  individuals  from  the  regu- 
lar churches,  but  not  in  sufficient  numbers  to  war- 
rant the  organization  of  a  church.        For  example, 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  143 

take  the  case  of  Nathan  Cole  of  Kensington,  who  af- 
terwards united  with  the  church  in  Middletown,  now 
the  South  Congregational  Church  of  that  city.  In 
his  "Spiritual  Travels,"  he  tells  how  he  was  deeply 
moved  by  the  preaching  of  Mr.  Whitefield,  to  hear 
whom  he  traveled  all  the  way  from  Kensington 
to  Middletown,  on  horseback,  with  his  wife.  He 
was  profoundly  moved  by  the  sermon.  He  speaks 
of  being  deeply  convicted  of  sin:  "I  was  loaded 
with  the  guilt  of  sin,  I  saw  I  was  undone 
forever,"  and  much  more  of  the  same  sort.  At  last 
he  saw  light  and  found  a  measure  of  peace,  and  he 
cried  oult, 

"Jesus   and    I    shall   never  part 

For   God    is   greater   than   my   heart." 

Then  followed  some  of  those  "imprudences  and 
irregularities"  of  which  Trumbull  speaks,  as  having 
injured  the  work  of  the  revival,  and  awakened  the 
opposition  of  many  of  the  leading  regular  churches. 
Nathan  Cole  tells  us  that  after  his  conversion  he 
had  a  vision  of  "the  form  of  A  Gospel  Church, 
and  the  place  where  it  was  settled  and  Angels 
hovering  over  it,  saying,  the  Glory  of  the  town, 
and  strangers  that  came  passing  by  had  the  same 
to  say."  Then  he  began  to  see  that  the  standing 
churches  were  not  of  the  gospel  order;  he  saw  Icha- 
bod  written  on  the  old  church  of  which  he  had  been 
a  member  for  fourteen  or  fifteen  years,  "for  they 
held  several  things  contrary  to  the  gospel,"  for 
example,  "that  unconverted  men  had  a  divine  right 


144  The  Separates 

to  come  to  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
to  give  themselves  up  in  covenant  to  the  Lord; 
whereas  the  Lord  says  to  the  wicked,  'what  hast 
those  to  do  to  take  my  covenant  into  thy  mouth.'  " 
This  he  called  lying  unto  God,  "on  both  sides,"  that 
is,  by  the  church,  and  by  those  who  joined  it.  He 
saw  but  one  course  open  to  him  and  took  it,  as 
others  had  done  in  other  communities.  "Then  I 
came  out  and  separated  or  dissented  from  them,  for 
I  could  not  see  them  to  be  a  Gospel  Church,  or 
Christ's  spouse,  Christ's  bride,  Christ's  beloved  one, 
or  Christ's  garden  well  enclosed."  So  he  says  that 
he  was  called  on  to  become  as  "the  offscouring  of 
.the  Earth,  and  to  lose  my  own  life,  as  it  were,  in 
the  world,  for  my  religion."  He  tells  us  that  the 
step  was  hard  to  take,  "was  like  death  to  the  flesh, 
but  God  gave  me  grace  according  to  my  day ;  and  in 
a  little  time,  he  made  every  bitter  thing  sweet." 
The  date  of  his  separation  from  the  regular  church 
he  gives  as  follows:  "I  Nathan  Cole  Separated 
from  the  Saybrook  Church  in  ye  year  1747,  & 
kept  meetings  in  my  own  house  on  ye  Sabbath  with 
a  few  others,  that  came  to  me  and  sometimes  we 
had  preachers  come  to  us."  This  went  on  till  Fri- 
day, June  29,  1764,  when  he  joined  "Mr.  Frdth- 
ingham's  Congregational  Church  in  Middletown." 
This,  he  tells  us,  at  considerable  length,  he  believed 
to  be  the  Gospel  Church  of  which  he  had  had  a 
vision  nearly  twenty  years  before. 

This  case  of   Nathan   Cole   is   given  as   an  ex- 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  145 

ample  of  very  many  individual  separations  from, 
or  protests  against,  the  Saybrook  Platform,  which 
never  resulted  in  an  organized  church.  This  case 
also  illustrates  the  sincere  spirit  of  the  whole  move- 
ment; although  to  some  it  may  seem  to  have  been 
ill-advised. 

Probably  the  first  distinct  case  of  separation  took 
place  in  New  London  in  1742.  These  people,  who 
came  out  from  Mr.  Adams'  church,  at  this  time, 
were  among  the  first  in  the  colony  to  be  organized 
into  a  Separate  society.  I  have  been  able  to  find 
no  definite  instance  that  was  earlier.  In  that  case 
the  Separate  movement  had  its  beginning  in  the 
First  Church  of  Christ,  New  London.  In  1741 
there  were  signs  of  the  approaching  event.  Mr. 
Parsons  preached  for  Mr.  Adams  in  June  of  that 
year.  He  said  that  he  found  rising  jealousies  which 
soon  ripened  into  "open  separation."  In  the  follow- 
ing February,  David  Brainerd  preached  for  Mr. 
Adams,  and  found  the  condition  of  ibhings  in  "wild 
confusion."  Matters  grew  worse  till  the  autumn  of 
1742.  November  29  was  communion  Sabbath.  It 
was  noticed  that  several  of  the  prominent  members 
of  Mr.  Adams'  church  were  absent.  This  was  the 
nucleus  of  a  company  of  people  who  met,  at  first,  at 
each  other's  houses.  They,  with  others,  to  the  num- 
ber of  about  one  hundred,  associated  themselves  into 
a  Separate  Society,  and  were  qualified  by  the  county 
court  to  hold  meetings  and  worship  together  with- 
out molestation.     This  seems  to  have  been  done  as 


146  The  Separates 

early  as  July;  for  Hempstead,  who  was  the  legal 
officer,  speaks,  in  his  diary,  of  going,  July  10th,  to 
confer  with  Mr.  Allen  about  preaching  in  private 
houses.  Evidently,  Mr.  Allen,  of  whom  mention 
has  been  made  in  a  previous  chapter,  was  on  the 
ground  at  that  time,  and  Separate  meetings  were 
being  held.  No  record  exists  of  the  regular  or- 
ganization of  a  Separate  church  further  than  has 
been  stated.  But  there  was  a  "Separate  Society," 
and  a  worshiping  assembly,  who  had  Mr.  Timothy 
Allen  as  teacher,  and  Mr.  Jonathan  Hill  as  ex- 
horter,  in  the  year  1742.  If  a  church  was  regularly 
organized,  it  probably  was  done  in  connection  with 
the  strange  scene  of  burning  the  books,  etc.,  already 
described.  And  it  may  be  said  that  there  is  as  much 
evidence,  as  in  most  of  the  cases,  that  a  Separate 
church  was  organized  here.  But  it  soon  disap- 
peared; for  Mr.  Allen  did  not  remain  long  after 
that  ebullition  of  zeal,  and  the  Separate  congrega- 
tion of  New  London  had  no  leader  after  he  left. 
Most  of  those,  especially  Itihe  principal  ones,  who  had 
separated  from  the  regular  church,  returned  to  it. 
The  rest,  under  the  leadership  of  Nathan  Howard, 
adopted  Baptist  principles,  and  joined  in  forming 
what  is  now  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Water- 
ford,  in  1748,  and  Howard  became  its  pastor,  and 
remained  so  until  his  death. 

The  church  in  Canterbury  became  Separate  in 
1744.  This  has  been  called  the  first  Separate  church 
in    Connecticut    and    probably    in    New    England. 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  14J 

This  claim  does  not  mean  that  Separate  gatherings 
for  worship  were  held  here  first,  nor  that  churches 
of  this  order  had  not  been  organized  elsewhere 
before  this  date,  bult,  to  quote  Miss  Larned, 
that  "the  church  in  Canterbury  was  the  first 
in  Connecticut,  and  perhaps  in  New  England, 
in  which  the  church  as  a  body,  by  a  large  major- 
ity, adopted  'New  Light'  principles."  It  is  quite 
true,  as  will  be  seen,  that  the  Windham  County 
Consociation  pronounced  judgment  against  them, 
and  recognized  the  minority  as  the  church.  But  this 
minority  never  held  the  original  records,  which  the 
majority  took  with  them.  Undoubtedly,  the  major- 
ity was  the  church.  In  this  view  Ebenezer  Froth- 
ingham  was  right  when  he  remonstrated  with  the 
worn-out  Separates  for  seeking  society  privileges, 
and  recalled  that  glorious  day  "when  the  first  visi- 
ble church  of  Christ  in  the  colony  took  up  Christ's 
sweet  cross,"  referring  to  the  Canterbury  church. 
The  story  of  the  origin  of  this  Canterbury  church 
is  an  interesting  and  a  significant  one.  The  regular 
or  established  church  was  organized  June  n,  171 1. 
January  27,  1743,  the  question  was  raised  whether 
the  church  would  accept  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
or  the  Cambridge  Platform  of  1648.  It  voted 
unanimously  that  the  latter  "is  most  agreeable  to 
the  former  and  designed  practice  of  this  church 
(except  their  having  ruling  elders  or  district  offi- 
cers) and  most  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures."  This 
voit'e  repudiated  the  authority  of  the  consociation, 


148  The  Separates 

and  took  issue  squarely  with  the  vote  of  the  legis- 
lature in  the  following  May,  which  made  the  Say- 
brook  Platform  obligatory  upon  all  Congregation- 
alists  or  Presbyterians.  In  1741  Rev.  Mr.  Wads- 
worth  was  dismissed  from  the  church.  He  went 
out  under  a  cloud.  The  church  was  left  in  a  low 
spiritual  state.  Through  the  preaching  of  Mr. 
Buel,  a  noted  revivalist,  a  quickened  interest  was 
awakened  in  many.  Among  them  were  Elisha  and 
Solomon  Paine.  As  this  church  had  never  adopted 
the  Saybrook  but  the  Cambridge  Platform,  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  enquire  into  the  former  con- 
stitution of  the  church  and  report.  The  legislation 
of  May,  1742,  put  a  new  face  on  affairs.  Matters 
were  in  worse  confusion.  The  religious  interest 
divided  the  town  into  two  parties.  The  one  was 
bitterly  opposed  to  the  revival,  and  sought,  in  every 
possible  way,  to  rob  it  of  its  fruits.-  This  party 
was  the  minority  of  the  church.  The  other  party 
was  composed  of  those  who  had  been  deeply  moved 
by  the  revival  under  Mr.  Buel,  and  were  called 
fanatics,  zealots,  etc.  The  leader  of  the  former 
party  was  Colonel  Dyer.  The  leader  of  the  latter 
party  was  Elisha  Paine.  Colonel  Dyer  and  his  party 
admitted  that  the  Cambridge  Platform  was  most 
agreeable  to  the  "former  and  designed  practice"  of 
the  church,  and  so  voted,  when  the  committee,  ap- 
pointed to  enquire  into  the  matter,  so  reported.  But 
they  bitterly  denounced  and  opposed  the  evangel- 
istic   measures    which    were    favored    by    Elisha 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  149 

Paine  and  his  party.  As  we  have  seen  above,  the 
vote  here  referred  to  was  taken  January  2J,  iy4S- 
The  crisis  came  in  the  matter  of  calling  a  pastor 
to  succeed  Mr.  Wadsworth.  The  first  party,  com- 
posed of  a  minority  of  the  church,  seventeen  of 
whom  were  under  censure,  or  had  been  excommuni- 
cated, together  with  a  majority  of  the  society,  voted, 
in  1744,  to  call  Rev.  James  Cogswell.  The  major- 
ity of  the  church  were  not  pleased  with  him,  be- 
cause his  preaching  seemed  to  them  cold,  formal  and 
legal.  After  hearing  him  a  few  Sabbaths  they 
protested  against  calling  him,  and  refused  to  hear 
him  preach.  However,  the  climax  of  the  difficulty 
was  not  reached,  and  the  separation  made  final,  until 
an  effort  at  agreement  had  been  made.  The  mi- 
nority of  the  church,  led  by  Colonel  Dyer,  and 
the  Society,  summoned  the  Consociation  of  Wind- 
ham County  to  their  aid.  By  this  act  they  accepted 
the  authority  of  the  consociation,  and  declared 
themselves  to  be  under,  and  virtually  adopted,  the 
Saybrook  Platform.  Yet  only  the  year  before 
these  very  persons  had  voted  unanimously, 
with  the  church,  that  they  were  under  the  Cam- 
bridge Platform.  Deacon  Backus,  Solomon  Paine, 
Obadiah  Johnson,  and  others  of  the  opposite  party, 
— a  majority  of  the  church, — were  invited  to  join 
in  laying  (their  difficulties  before  the  consociation. 
But  the  church  had  adopted  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, and  through  its  special  committee  had  de- 
clared that  it  still  stood  upon  it.     They  therefore 


150  The  Separates 

refused  to  recognize  the  authority  of  a  body  con- 
stituted by  the  platform,  which  the  church  had 
unanimously  repudiated  twelve  months  before. 
However,  they  called  a  council  of  sister  churches 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  their  difficulties.  Both 
bodies,  the  consociation  and  the  council,  met  Decem- 
ber 12,  1743.  The  former  held  its  sessions  in  the 
meeting-house,  of  which  Colonel  Dyer's  party  held 
the  custody  of  the  keys.  The  Council  met  at  the 
house  of  Captain  John  Wadsworth.  After  due  de- 
liberation both  bodies  counseled  peace,  and  recom- 
mended thalt  either  Mr.  Lee  or  Mr.  Cogswell  be 
called.  Solomon  Paine  and  his  party  accepted  the 
advice  of  the  council  which  they  had  summoned, 
and  attended  upon  the  preaching  of  Mr.  Cogswell 
for  some  time.  But  after  hearing  him  a  few  Sab- 
baths they  were  constrained  to  renew  their  oppo- 
sition to  him.  Nevertheless,  at  a  meeting  held  Nov- 
ember 27,  1744,  the  society  and  the  minority  of  the 
church,  to  the  number  of  sixteen,  led  by  Colonel 
Dyer,  voted,  as  has  been  said,  to  call  Mr.  Cogswell. 
In  this  vote,  at  the  suggestion  of  Colonel  Dyer,  those 
who  extended  the  call  declared  themselves  to  be  un- 
der the  Saybrook  Platform,  and  so  to  be  under  the 
authority  of  the  consociation. . 

Those  who  had  called,  and  were  now  to  settle 
Mr.  Cogswell,  declaring  themselves  to  be  the  First 
Church  in  Canterbury,  though  largely  in  the  mi- 
nority, and,  some  of  them  under  its  censure,  sum- 
moned  the   Consociation  of  Windham   County   to 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  151 

meet  for  the  ordination  of  Mr.  James  Cogswell, 
and  to  decide  between  them  and  the  majority,  who 
dissented  from  the  action  taken  in  calling  Mr.  Cogs- 
well, as  to  which  were  entitled  to  be  called  the  First 
Church  in  Canterbury.  The  consociation  met 
December  26,  1744.  They  decided  "that  those  who 
on  that  day  [January  27,  1743]  voted  themselves 
Congregational  according  to  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, are  to  be  esteemed  by  that  explicit  act  to  have 
denominated  themselves  another  church,  and  sepa- 
rated themselves  from  those  who  adhered  to  the 
Saybrook  Regulations,"  and  were  therefore  "Sepa- 
rators;" that  those  who  called  Mr.  James  Cogs- 
well, November  27,  1744,  although  they  had  joined 
in  the  vote  of  January  27,  1743,  adopting  the  Cam- 
bridge Platform,  were,  nevertheless,  "The  Church 
of  Canterbury."  The  consociation  proceeded  to 
ordain  Mr.  Cogswell  against  the  protest  of  the  large 
majority  of  the  church,  in  accordance  with  a  minor 
vote  of  the  church  with  a  major  vote  of  the  society. 
This  act  was  unconstitutional  according  to  the  Plat- 
form under  which  they  acted.  For  that  document 
expressly  stated  that,  in  the  ordination  of  a  minister, 
as  pastor  of  a  church,  there  shall  be  consent  of  a 
majority  of  its  members.  This  is  an  example  of  the 
high-handed  measures  which  were  taken,  both  by 
the  legislature  and  the  leading  clergymen,  to  force 
the  Saybrook  Platform  upon  the  churches  in  Con- 
necticut, and  to  repress  "zealous  experimental 
preachers  and  people."     And  yet  no  act  was  more 


152  The  Separates 

disorderly,  according  to  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
than  the  ordination  of  Mr.  James  Cogswell  in  spite 
of  the  protest  of  a  large  majority  of  the  church. 
These,  who  were  declared  to  be  "Separates,"  "schis- 
matics," and  "violaters  of  the  standing  order,"  com- 
prised about  fifty  families,  were  largely  in  the 
majority,  had  the  records  of  the  church,  and  there- 
fore its  organization.  By  every  law  of  ecclesiastical 
procedure  the  majority  who  refused  to  assent  to  the 
settlement  of  Mr.  Cogswell  were  the  church.  How- 
ever, the  consocialtion  decided  against  them,  pro- 
ceeded to  ordain  him  and  denounce  the  remonstrants 
as  "Separates."  These  people,  who  were  really  the 
church,  being  thus  ostracized  by  the  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority which  had  the  law  of  the  colony  behind  it, 
proceeded  to  hold  meetings  by  themselves,  in  private 
houses,  and  elsewhere,  which  was  contrary  to  the 
law.  Their  exhofters  conducted  public  worship  and 
preached,  which  was  in  defiance  of  the  act  of  May, 
1742.  Many  of  them  were  arrested,  fined  and  im- 
prisoned. In  some  cases  they  lay  in  jail  for  months, 
and  their  families  suffered  for  the  necessities  of  life. 
The  course  which  they  took  was  in  open  violation 
of  the  statute.  But  the  question  arises  whether  the 
statute  was  not  unjust  and  in  violation  of  every 
man's  constitutional  right;  in  open  violation  even 
O'f  the  charter  of  the  colony  itself. 

About  1782  this  church  was  reorganized.  Its 
house  of  worship  was  removed  from  where  it  stood 
near   "the   green,"    and   set   up   in   the   north   part 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  153 

of  the  town,  where  it  stood  till  about  1853.  The 
church  became  known  as  "the  North  Church  in  Can- 
terbury, Separated  Dec.  1744."  As  such  it  was 
received  into  the  communion  of  the  regular  Congre- 
gational churches.  Their  first  preacher  was  Solo- 
mon Paine,  who  was  settled  over  it  in  1746.  Joseph 
Marshall  was  the  next.  His  ministry  began  in 
April,  1759,  five  years  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Paine. 
He  was  dismissed  in  1768.  William  Bradford  and 
others  followed  till  1831,  when  the  church  had. 
virtually  become  extinct.  Being  the  majority  of  the 
church  at  the  time  when  the  consociation  declared 
them  to  be  Separates,  they  always  affirmed  them- 
selves to  be  the  original  church.  They  retained  the 
records,  and  the  communion  service.  Undoubtedly 
they  were  the  church.  However,  the  church  which 
ordained  Mr.  Cogswell  remains,  while  that  body 
which  refused  assent  to  his  call  and  ordination  is 
extinct.  There  were  bodies  of  dissenters  in  several 
places  before  Canterbury.  But  admitting  their 
claim,  as  we  must,  the  church  in  Canterbury 
was  the  first  to  espouse  Separate  principles  as  a 
church. 

A  Separate  Church  was  organized  in  Lisbon, 
which  at  that  time  was  a  portion  of  Norwich, 
known  as  Newent.  As  to  the  date  of  this  organi- 
zation a  manuscript  history  of  the  church  in  Lis- 
bon says  that  it  took  place  soon  after  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Separate  church  in  Canterbury,  and  that 
it   was   "made  up   of   disaffected   but   undismissed 


154  The  Separates 

members  of  this,"  the  regular  church.  The  chroni- 
cler adds,  "The  original  Newent  church  kindly  treat- 
ing and  treating  with  members  who  unkindly  and 
by  breach  of  covenant  had  broken  out  from  its  fold, 
so  learned  why  these  took  the  course  they  did." 
The  reasons  alleged  for  the  separation  were,  to 
quote  further  from  the  chronicler,  "want  of  edifi- 
cation from  the  church's  minister;  this  church 
lacked  gospel  order,  as  having  no  ordained  ruling 
elders  and  no  ordained  deacons;  owned  Christ  in 
words,  but  in  deeds  denied  him;  held  external  pro- 
fessions to  be  evidences  of  a  gracious  state;  con- 
tained unconverted  men;  and  held  in  covenant  per- 
sons not  in  full  communion."  January  17,  1746, 
the  regular  church  proceeded  "to  riddle  these  rea- 
sons, taking  up  each  separately"  and  voted,  with 
regard  to  each,  "Not  sufficient."  It  also  voted 
to  "call  upon  them  to  retract  and  return 
to  this  church  with  proper  reflection  on  themselves 
publicly,  according^  to  gospel  rules,  which  warning 
is  to  be  given  them  publicly  by  the  Pastor  after  the 
lecture  preparatory  to  the  next  sacrament  notifying 
them  to  appear.  The  which  warning  if  they  refuse 
to  hearken  to,  the  church  agree  to  suspend  them 
from  Communion  in  special  ordinances  after  due 
warning."  Fifteen  persons  appeared  before  the 
society  and  agreed  to  pay  "this  year's  rates  of  those 
that  appear  to  be  sober  and  conscientous  Sepa- 
rates." 

But  the  warning  of  the  church  was  not  heeded. 


Where   They    Were,   etc.  155 

The  Separate  society  was  formed.  Jeremiah  Tracy, 
Jr.,  was  called  to  be  the  pastor  of  the  seceders,  and 
administered  the  ordinances  to  them.  A  record  of 
the  regular  church  says,  "By  credible  information, 
Jeremiah  Tracy,  Jr.,  has  taken  upon  him  to  be  a 
preacher,  a  calling  which  we  don't  apprehend  God 
has  called  him  to." 

Dr.  Stiles  in  his  diary  says  that  Mr.  Thomas 
Denison  was  called  to  the  office  of  teacher  in  this 
Newent  Separate  church.  As  there  was  some  doubt 
expressed  as  to  his  previous  (Baptist)  ordination,  he 
was  reordained  by  several  whom  he  himself  had 
ordained.  Among  them  was  Mr.  Hovey  of  Mans- 
field.      "This,"  says  Dr.  Stiles,  "was  about  1747." 

Mr.  Bliss  Willoughby  was  called,  in  1753,  to  suc- 
ceed Jeremiah  Tracy,  Jr.,  as  pastor  of  the  church. 
A  meeting-house  was  built  which,  the  chronicler 
declares,  stood  "longer  than  any  occasion  for  using 
it  appeared."  It  was  taken  down  in  1765,  and  its 
timber  was  used  in  the  construction  of  a  barn  which 
was  standing  after  the  nineteenth  century  began. 

When  the  Separate  society  was  formed  "there 
were  not  more,  or  at  most  scarcely  more  than  a  score 
that  Separated  from  the  Newent  Church."  The 
same  chronicler  adds  that  "most,  if  not  all,  who 
were  specially  of  worth,"  were  won  back  to  the  old 
church.  The  chronicler  continues,  "The  Separatist 
church  were  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd.  Mr. 
Willoughby,  after  supervising  them  two  or  three 
years,  and  after  visiting  England  as  an  agent  of 


156  The  Separates 

Separatists  generally  had  recrossed  the  ocean  and 
having  gone  to  another  denomination,  preached  at 
Bennington,  Vt."  Mr.  Amos  A.  Browning  says 
that  nearly  all  the  members  of  the  Newent  Separa- 
rate  church  emigrated  to  Bennington,  Vermont, 
where  they  formed  a  settlement,  "and  gathered 
again  as  the  same  church,"  where  they  finally  be- 
came identified  with  the  regular  Congregational 
churches.  Of  those  who  remained,  "a  considerable 
number  of  the  disbanded  [Separate  church  of 
Newent]  became  members  of  the  Brunswick 
Church."  November  19  and  20,  1770,  a  meeting  of 
the  regular  church  in  Newent  was  held.  "Some  of 
those  who  had  been  of  ye  Separate  Oh  gave  an  ac- 
count of  their  experimental  acquaintance  with 
Christ,"  and  "joined  in  a  Solemn  Renewal  of  Cove- 
nant and  in  Receiving  and  Consenting  to  the  Con- 
fession of  faith  Contained  in  ye  Records  of  this 
Chh."  At  this  meeting  eight  "heads  of  agree- 

ment" were  unanimously  adopted.  The  chronicler 
adds,  "Those  heads  accepted  as  specially  needful  for 
this  church  at  that  time  are  in  every  respect  ad- 
mirable for  clear  discrimination  and  manly  asser- 
tion of  civil  rights,  as  well  as  for  decisive  applica- 
tion of  Christian  principle  in  that  Christian  spirit 
which  protects  the  claim  of  conscience  by  honoring 
the  claim  of  God."  Among  the  eight  heads  of 
agreement  were  these,  which  were  a  distinct 
concession  to  the  Separates  :  "It  is  not  according  to 
the  rule  of  Christ's  house  to  admit  any  to  transact 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  157 

in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  who  are  not  at  the 
same  time  apparently  qualified  by  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; nor  to  bring  their  children  to  baptism  till  they 
are  actually  in  the  communion  of  the  church;"  "that 
it  is  not  expedient  nor  for  the  health  of  this  church 
to  compel  any  by  civil  power  contrary  to  their 
minds,  to  pay  anything  to  the  support  of  the  gospel ; 
but  that  all  [should]  be  left  to  do  it  in  such  voluntary 
way  as  they  shall  think  proper."  The  chronicler 
adds,  "that  fourth  head  was  instantly  effectual  in 
killing  here  the  halfway  covenant."  As  these  points 
of  agreement  covered  the  chief  reasons  for  the 
original  secession,  this  was  the  end  of  the  Separate 
movement  in  Lisbon. 

A  Separate  church,  of  thirty  male  members,  was 
organized  in  Norwich,  at  Bean  Hill,  in  1745.  It 
was  made  up  of  persons  who  seceded  from  the  First 
Church,  of  which  the  Rev.  Benjamin  Lord  was,  at 
the  time,  pastor.  This  event  seems  the  more 
strange  for  several  reasons.  Mr.  Lord  was  regarded 
as  a  very  earnest  evangelical  preacher.  His  style 
of  delivery  was  impressive — of  the  kind  which 
was  supposed  to  be  pleasing  to  the  New  Lights. 
The  church  had  refused  to  accept  the  Saybrook  Plat- 
form, which  was  so  obnoxious  to  the  Separates,  so 
strenuous  was  the  First  Church  in  its  hold  on  in- 
dependency. When  the  pastor  sought  permission  to 
join  the  New  London  Association,  none  of  whose 
members  had  assented  to  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
the  church  granted  permission,  on  condition  that 


158  The  Separates 

the  act  did  not  compromise  the  independency  of  the 
church  nor  imply  consent  to  the  New  Platform 
as  a  mode  of  discipline.  The  association,  on  re- 
ceiving Mr.  Lord,  expressly  voted  that  his  joining 
it  would  not  be  construed  as  assent  "to  the  articles 
of  church  discipline  established  by  this  Colony  and 
as  binding  him  and  his  church  to  be  governed  by 
them." 

But  in  spite  of  all  this,  the  "New  Lights"  were 
not  satisfied.  They  insisted  that,  because  he  had 
joined  the  Association,  he  and  his  church  had  for- 
saken the  old  platform  for  the  new — the  Cambridge 
for  the  Saybrook.  But  the  futility  of  this  objection 
appears  from  the  fact  that  February  20,  1744-5, 
the  church  revoked  the  permission  which  they  had 
granted,  and  protested  against  their  pastor  at- 
tending meeltings  of  the  association  in  the  future; 
at  the  same  time  reaffirming  "their  attachment  to 
the  Platform  of  the  Fathers  of  1648,  'not  only  in 
respect  to  doctrine  and  truth  and  form  of  cove- 
nant, but  in  respect  of  order  and  exercise  of  church 
discipline.'  '  Here,  then,  there  was  no  ground  for 
separation,  for  this  vote  was  taken  about  the  time 
the  "New  Lights"  withdrew. 

But  there  was  another  grievance.  The  church 
had  voted :  "Though  it  is  deemed  a  desirable  thing 
that  persons  who  come  into  full  communion  offer 
some  publick  relation  of  their  experience;  yet  we  do 
not  judge  or  hold  it  a  term  of  communion."  Mr. 
Lord  had  also  declared  himself  as  decidedly  averse 


Where   They   Were,  etc.  159 

"to  making  a  relation  of  experience  a  term  of  com- 
munion." The  Separates  were  strenuous  upon  this 
point,  as  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  a  pure 
church.  This  was  a  radical  point  of  difference. 
They  were  not  satisfied.  Withdrawal  was  the  only 
course  which  they  saw  open  before  them,  and  they 
withdrew. 

On  February  19,  1744-5  was  the  first  sign  or 
evidence  that  a  separation  from  Mr.  Lord's  church 
had  taken  place.  The  leaders  in  it  were  Hugh 
Caulkins  and  Jedediah  Hyde.  The  first  Separate 
meetings  were  held  in  the  house  of  Mr.  Caulkins, 
near  Yantic  bridge.  A  committee  of  the  church 
was  appointed  to  find  out  the  reasons  for  their  with- 
drawal, and,  if  possible,  bring  them  back  into  the 
church.  Thirteen  were  cited  to  appear  and  give 
the  reasons  for  continued  absence  from  the  church 
and  its  ordinances,  and  attending  Separate  meetings 
on  the  Sabbath.  Some  would  not  discuss  the  mat- 
ter; others  frankly  gave  their  reasons.  The  gen- 
eral reason  was,  "the  gospel  better  preached  else- 
where;" from  which  it  seems  that  these  people  dis- 
sented from  the  general  esteem  in  which  Mr.  Lord 
was  held  as  a  preacher.  Jedediah  Hyde's  objection 
to  the  church  was,  "not  making  regeneration  the 
only  term  of  communion;"  "opening  the  door  too 
wide,  letting  in  all  sorts  of  persons  without  giving 
any  evidence  of  their  faith  in  Christ,  and  repent- 
ance towards  God."  Here  was  their  strong  point 
of  objection,  and  it  was  not  taken  without  cause. 


160  The  Separates 

Later  the  reasons  given  were  stated  as  follows : 
"Neglect  of  church  discipline,"  "coldness  and  want 
of  application  in  preaching,"  "the  qualifications 
necessary  to  church  membership,"  "private  brethren 
being  debarred  the  privilege  of  exhortion  and 
prayer,"  "the  laws  of  the  state."  These  reasons 
were  deemed  insufficient  by  the  church.  The 
separation  was  declared  to  be  "uncharitable  and  un- 
warrantable; an  offence  to  Christ  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  and  a  disorderly  walking."  The  thirteen 
offending  members  were  suspended. 

The  Separate  church  began,  as  has  been  said,  at 
the  house  of  Hugh  Caulkins,  February  19,  1745. 
October  30,  1747,  Jedediah  Hyde  was  ordained  as 
its  pastor.  A  house  of  worship  was  erected  at  Bean 
Hill.  For  reasons,  which  are  nowhere  recorded, 
Mr.  Hyde  was  deposed  September  22,  1757.  Mr. 
John  Fuller  was  ordained  in  his  place  August  17, 
1759,  and  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Reynolds,  who  was 
ordained  December  22,  1762.  November  8,  1766, 
he  embraced  Baptist  principles.  Under  his  teach- 
ings the  church  languished  and  died.  Meetings 
were  held,  however,  till  March  15,  1788,  when  the 
remnant  met  as  Universalists.  This  was  the  end 
of  the  Bean  Hill  Separate  church.  They  suffered 
the  usual  persecutions  visited  upon  their  kind;  im- 
prisonment, distraint  of  property,  and  various  other 
penalties  inflicted  for  alleged  violations  of  the  law 
regulating  public  worship,  and  providing  for  the 
support  of  the  gospel.    One  of  the  most  noteworthy 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  161 

cases  is  that  of  the  widow  Elizabeth  Backus,  who 
refused  to  pay  the  ministerial  rates,  and  was  put  in 
jail  for  thirteen  days,  till  General  Jedediah  Hunt- 
ingdon, her  grandson,  pledged  himself  to  pay  her 
rates  annually  for  the  support  of  the  minister  of  the 
regular  church. 

A  letter  written  by  Mrs.  Backus  to  her  son,  dated 
at  Norwich,  November  4,  1752,  gives  some  idea  of 
the  temper  of  these  people  under  their  sufferings. 
It  is  as  follows: 

Dear  Son : — I  have  heard  something  of  the  trials 
among  you  of  late,  and  I  was  grieved  till  I  had 
strength  to  give  the  case  up  to  God,  and  leave  my 
burthen  there.  And  now  I  would  tell  you  some- 
thing of  our  trials.  Your  brother  Samuel  lay  in 
prison  twenty  days.  October  15,  the  collector  came 
to  our  house,  and  took  me  away  to  prison  about  nine 
o'clock,  in  a  dark  rainv  night.  Brothers  Hill  and 
Sabin  were  brought  there  next  night.  We  lay  in 
prison  thirteen  days,  and  then  were  set  at  liberty, 
by  what  means  I  know  not.*  Whilst  I  was  there, 
a  great  many  people  came  to  see  me;  and  some  said 
one  thing,  and  some  another.  O  the  innumerable 
snares  and  temptations  that  beset  me,  more  than  I 
ever  thought  of  before!  But,  O  the  condescension 
of  Heaven !  Though  I  was  bound  when  I  was  cast 
into  this  furnace,  yet  was  I  loosed,  and  found  Jesus 
in  the  midst  of  the  furnace  with  me.  O,  then  I 
could  give  up  my  name,  estate,  family,  life  and 
breath,  freely  to  God.  Now  the  prison  looked  like 
a  palace  to  me.    I  could  bless  God  for  all  the  laughs 

*The  reason,  as  stated  above,  was,  in  her  case,  that  her 
grandson  agreed  to  pay  her  annual  rates;  apparently  with- 
out her  knowledge. 


11 


1 62  The  Separates 

and  scoffs  made  at  me.  O  the  love  that  flowed  out 
to  all  mankind.  Then  I  could  forgive,  as  I  would 
desire  to  be  forgiven,  and  love  my  neighbor  as  my- 
self. Deacon  Griswold  was  put  in  prison  the  8th  of 
October,  and  yesterday  old  brother  Grover,  and  are 
in  pursuit  of  others;  all  which  calles  for  humilia- 
tion. This  church  hath  appointed  the  13th  of  No- 
vember to  be  spent  in  prayer  and  fasting  on  that  ac- 
count.    .     .     . 

These  from  your  loving  mother, 

Elizabeth  Backus. 

This  letter  from  this  widow  of  fifty-four  years 
shows  what  it  often  cost  the  Separates  to  stand  by 
their  convictions. 

Denison,  in  his  notes  on  the  Baptists  in  Norwich, 
and  their  principles,  gives  the  following  account  of 
the  final  end  of  the  Bean  Hill  Separate  meeting- 
house :  "The  meeting  house  of  the  Separate  Church 
in  Norwich  was  for  a  time  used  for  a  female  acad- 
emy taught  by  Dr.  Morse,  the  author  of  Geogra- 
phies and  Gazeteers;  it  was  afterwards  occupied  for 
a  time  by  the  Methodists  till  they  entered  their 
chapel  in  1834.  The  house  was  finally  taken  down 
in  1843  to  make  place  for  the  new  school  house." 

October  9,  1745,  the  Separates  in  Mansfield  em- 
bodied themselves  into  a  church,  solemnly  covenant- 
ing together  as  such,  without  letters  of  dismission 
from  the  churches  from  which  they  withdrew.  Sev- 
eral were  under  censure,  probably  for  the  offence  of 
listening  to  "New  Light"  preachers.  A  brief  ac- 
count of  the  regular  church  in  Mansfield  says,  that 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  163 

"the  early  part  of  Dr.  Salter's  ministry  was  em- 
barassed  and  tried  by  the  conduct  of  some  of  the 
members  of  his  church  who  were  the  radicals  of  the 
memorable  revival  of  1740.  These  denounced  the 
Church  and  Pastor  as  dead,  hypocrites,  and  devoid 
of  all  spiritual  religion,  and  went  out  from  them 
in  a  disorderly  manner,  and  formed  a  separate 
church.  The  Church,  after  bearing  with  them  for 
a  time  were  constrained  to  cut  them  off."  The  se- 
ceders  chose  Deacon  Thomas  Marsh  to  be  their  pas- 
tor. January  6,  1746,  was  set  apart  for  his  ordina- 
tion, as  their  teaching  elder.  A  number  of  ministers 
of  the  neighboring  churches  of  the  established  order, 
hearing  of  the  proposed  ordination,  met  with  a  view 
of  discoursing  with  them,  and,  if  possible,  of  dis- 
suading them  from  their  purpose.  But  it  was  with- 
out avail.  But  Mr.  Marsh  was  not  ordained;  for 
the  day  before  that  appointed  for  his  ordination  he 
was  arrested  and  put  in  jail  for  the  crime  of  preach- 
ing without  a  license.  A  great  company  of  people 
gathered  on  the  appointed  day.  Elisha  Paine 
preached.  The  ministers  of  the  regular  churches 
were  present  to  protest.  Their  reception  was 
tumultuous,  and  their  protest  vain.  The  Separates 
met  again  in  February,  1745-6,  to  ordain  John 
Hovey,  who  had  meanwhile  been  chosen  as  pastor. 
This  service  was  attended  with  some  difficulty  be- 
cause an  ordained  person  could  not  be  found  to  per- 
form it.  At  length  they  secured  the  assistance  of 
Thomas  Denison,  formerly  a  Baptist  elder,  who  had 


164  The  Separates 

recently  been  ordained  by  Ebenezer  Moulton  of 
Brimfield,  and  who  traced  his  ministerial  succes- 
sion back  to  three  noted  Congregational  ministers 
of  Boston.  So  Mr.  Hovey  was  ordained  pastor  of 
the  Mansfield  Separate  church.  He  continued  in  of- 
fice many  years.  He  died  October  28,  1775.  Deacon 
Marsh  was  kept  locked  securely  in  Windham  County 
jail  until  July,  when  he  was  released,  and  the  church 
at  once  ordained  him  as  colleague  of  Mr.  Hovey.  In 
1765  the  church  had  wasted  so  that  there  were 
but  two  men  and  two  women  who  remained 
members.  These  obtained  "liberty  of  communion" 
with  the  church  in  South  Killingly,  till  the  Lord 
should  provide  for  them  some  other  way.  Thus 
the  movement  in  Mansfield  came  to  an  end.  The 
Canterbury  church  retained  its  original  covenant. 
So  the  articles  of  faith  of  the  Mansfield  church, 
twenty-two  in  number,  referred  to  in  a  previous 
chapter,  were  the  first  known  elaborate  and  care- 
fully framed  statement  of  doctrine  and  practice  pub- 
lished by  the  Separate  leaders. 

The  revival  in  Plainfield,  as  in  other  places, 
resulted  in  a  division  of  the  church.  A  mi- 
nority of  this  body  became  uneasy  at  the 
practice  of  admitting  members  without  a 
narration  of  their  experience,  and  of  baptiz- 
ing children  whose  parents  were  not  members  of  the 
church.  Mr.  Coit,  the  pastor,  was  old  and  cautious, 
and  unwilling  to  make  changes  or  concessions.  At 
length    the    uneasy    minority    withdrew    from    the 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  165 

standing  church,  and  organized  as  a  church  on  the 
Cambridge  Platform.  This  was  accomplished  in 
1746.  They  called,  as  was  the  usual  custom  of 
the  Separates,  one  of  their  own  number  to  the  min- 
istry, and  he  was  ordained  September  11,  as  appears 
from  a  letter  missive  to  the  Canterbury  church,  in- 
viting them  to  assist  at  the  ordination.  The  move- 
ment, at  the  start,  was  very  flourishing.  It  soon 
became  evident  that  the  Separates  carried  the  town. 
Mr.  Coit  was  aged  and  infirm  and  unable  to  cope 
with  the  new  and  powerful  influences  which  were  at 
work.  Mr.  Stevens,  the  "New  Light"  preacher, 
though  a  young  man  of  less  than  common  education 
was  earnest  and  fervent.  Large  numbers  were  at- 
tracted to  his  ministry.  The  old  church  and  the  town 
roughly  set  aside  the  disabled  pastor,  withdrew  his 
salary,  and  proceeded  to  elect  a  new  pastor.  The 
choice  finally  fell  upon  Mr.  David  Rowland  of  Fair- 
field, who  graduated  from  Yale  in  1743.  At  first 
he  pleased  all  parties  in  town,  and  he  was  called 
July  13,  1747.  But  on  conference  with  him  it  was 
found  that  he  favored  the  Saybrook  Platform. 
While  the  majority  of  the  church  were  pleased,  the 
town,  which  was  controlled  by  the  votes  of  those 
in  sympathy  with  the  Separates,  refused  to  proceed 
further  with  Mr.  Rowland,  but  to  look  for  a  new 
candidate.  Finally,  however,  the  friends  of  Mr. 
Rowland  succeeded  in  securing  a  majority  at  a 
legally  called  meeting,  and  at  once  proceeded  to 
issue  a  call  to  Mr.  Rowland,  December  3,  1747.    The 


1 66  The  Separates 

Separates  were  thus  outgeneraled,  and  Mr.  Row- 
land was  ordained  March  15,  1748.  It  is  said  that 
his  "ministry  was  in  troublous  times  on  account  of 
the  Separate  movement."  He  accepted  the  call, 
fully  understanding  the  difficulties  of  the  situation. 
Mr.  Stevens,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  Separate 
church,  was,  as  Mr.  Rowland  himself  testified,  a 
man  of  native  ability.  He  died  November  15,  1755. 
He  was  succeeded,  in  1758,  by  Alexander  Miller, 
who  came  from  the  church  in  Voluntown.  He 
ministered,  till  his  death,  to  the  Separates  in  Plain- 
field.  Both  the  old  church,  and  that  of  the  "New 
Lights,"  were  on  the  wane.  In  their  feeble  state 
there  arose  in  both  a  desire  for  a  reunion.  This  de- 
sire was  accomplished  February,  1769,  by  the 
settlement  of  Rev.  John  Fuller,  a  Separate  preacher, 
as  pastor  of  the  reunited  churches,  in  which  office 
he  continued  to  minister  until  his  death  in  October, 
1777.  Thus  a  happy  reunion  was  effected  after  a 
separation  of  twenty-five  years,  and  a  more  delight- 
ful ending  of  the  Separate  movement  was  reached 
in  Plainfield  than  can  be  recorded  of  many  other 
places. 

In  South  Killingly,  as  in  Plainfield  and  else- 
where, the  great  revival  gave  birth  to  a  Separate 
movement.  The  people  in  this  section  of  the  town 
adopted  Separate  principles,  and  were  organized 
into  a  distinct  church.  This  was  in  1746.  In 
December  of  that  year  Stephen  Spalding  was  chosen 
clerk,  and  in  the  following  February  he  was  chosen 


Where   They   Were,  etc.  167 

deacon.  April  2j,  1747,  say  the  records,  "John 
Eaton  was  also  chosen  deacon,  and  Samuel  Wads- 
worth  our  pastor  by  vote."  Mr.  Wadsworth  ac- 
cepted, and  "June  3,  1747  was  set  apart  for  fasting 
and  prayer,  on  purpose  to  ordain  our  pastor  and 
deacons."  His  ordination  is  said  to  have  been  of 
a  regular  and  most  satisfactory  character.  The 
leading  Separate  ministers  were  present.  Rev. 
Matthew  Smith  of  Stonington  preached  the  ser- 
mon; Rev.  Joseph  Snow  of  Providence  gave  the 
charge ;  Ebenezer  Cleaveland  of  Canterbury  gave  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship.  Isaac  Backus,  the  histo- 
rian, and  Oliver  Prentice  of  Stonington  assisted  in 
the  laying  on  of  hands.  The  exercises  were  so  pro- 
longed that  the  ordination  of  deacons  was  deferred 
till  the  following  week.  Mr.  Wadsworth  continued 
in  office  till  he  died  in  1762.  He  was  followed  by 
Eliphalet  Wright  who  was  ordained,  says  Rev. 
Robert  C.  Learned,  May  16,  1765.  He  died  August 
4,  1784.  June  1,  1785,  Israel  Day  was  jordained 
as  his  successor,  and  continued  in  office  till  his  dis- 
missal May  23,  1826,  a  period  of  forty-one  years. 
During  Mr.  Day's  ministry  he  was  received  into  the 
Windham  County  Association  by  a  special  vote.  It 
was  probably  during  his  ministry  that  the  church, 
after  many  years  as  a  Separate  body,  returned  to 
the  churches  which  it  had  left,  and  by  their  vote 
was  received  into  their  fellowship.  After  Mr.  Day 
left  the  church  it  was  supplied  by  various  ministers. 
Rev.   Joseph  Ayer  began  preaching  March,    1849, 


1 68  The  Separates 

and  was  installed  January,  1851.  These  Separates 
were  allowed  to  pursue  their  own  way  without  moles- 
tation, save  that  they  were  obliged  to  pay  rates  for 
the  support  of  the  established  preacher.  The  church 
itself  has  long  been  feeble  and  dependent  on  Home 
Missionary  aid.  But  it  still  remains.  In  1755  this 
church  appealed  to  the  legislature  for  relief  from 
taxation  for  the  support  of  the  established  churches. 
Its  petition  was  finally  granted.  From  that  time 
the  case  of  the  Separates  in  Connecticut  was  not  so 
severe. 

A  Separate  society  was  also  organized  in  Nor- 
wich Farms,  now  Franklin.  Thomas  Denison  was 
ordained  as  its  pastor  October  29,  1747.  He  con- 
tinued in  office  till  about  1759,  after  which  the 
church  does  not  appear  to  have  existed.  Of  him  it 
is  said  that  he  appeared  at  various  times  and  places 
in  the  history  of  the  Separate  churches. 

In  North  Stonington  a  Separate  church  of  thirty- 
one  members  was  organized  September  II,  1746. 
Matthew  Smith  was  chosen  as  pastor,  as  appears 
from  the  records  of  the  church,  November  27,  1746. 
He  was  ordained  December  10,  of  the  same  year. 
August  3,  1749,  he  was  excommunicated  by  a  coun- 
cil. Mr.  Smith's  own  account  of  the  affair  furnishes 
the  only  known  reason  for  so  summary  action; 
which,  by  the  way,  was  not  without  its  parallel  in 
the  history  of  the  Separate  churches.  He  says, 
"Soon  after  I  was  ordained  at  Stonington  I  preached 
Ito  the  people  from  Ephes.  II,  22,  in  a  clear  line  of 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  169 

gospel  truth;  all  on  a  sudden  I  perceived  that  the 
church  did  not  give  me  fellowship."  This  caused 
some  talk  on  that  day.  "We  parted  in  great  confu- 
sion," continues  Mr.  Smith,  and  adds,  "We  must 
see  eye  to  eye,  or  my  lips  will  be  forever  sealed. 
The  laboring  point  could  not  be  gained.  I  took  a 
tour  into  the  country — returned  before  sacrament 
day.  The  church  desired  me  to  proceed  as  usual. 
I  objected  and  refused.  Then  the  church  called  a 
council  and  charged  me  with  neglect  of  duty."  Yet 
the  church  said  to  the  council,  "We  have  nothing 
against  Brother  Smith,  and  so  every  man  went  to 
his  tent.  After  a  few  Sabbaths  my  mouth  was  quite 
stopped  that  I  could  not  speak  for  want  of  fellow- 
ship." Soon  after  Mr.  Smith  removed  to  Mansfield. 
In  about  a  year  the  church  in  North  Stonington 
called  a  council  in  the  case,  and  summoned  Mr. 
Smith  to  appear  before  it  and  answer  to  the  charges 
against  him.  He  says,  "I  attended  it  and  they  had 
a  full  hearing  of  the  matters  alledged  against  me. 
The  Moderator  turning  to  me  says,  there  is  some 
accursed  thing  with  you,  that  you,  by  your  softness, 
hide  from  us ;  and  for  which  I  now,  in  the  Name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  declare  you  unworthy  to  have  a 
standing  in  his  house,  and  hereby  cut  you  off  from 
all  priviledges  in  the  same,  and  deliver  you  over  to 
the  buffetings  of  the  devil."  Another  of  the  council 
declared  that  Mr.  Smith  was  not  fit  "to  walk  the 
streets  of  the  New  Jerusalem,"  and  therefore  cast 
him  out  of  the  same  and  set  him  "down  in  the  cold 


1 70  The  Separates 

shades  of  Antichrist  and  the  dark  lanes  of  Babylon, 
to  be  buffeted  by  the  devil,  and  eat  no  more  of  the 
children's  bread."  Another  said,  "As  you  are  now 
excommunicated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  you  will  soon 
feel  and  curse  like  a  Devil."  And  so  Mr.  Smith's 
ministry  came  to  an  end  for  reasons  which  do  not 
appear. 

He  was  succeeded  by  Oliver  Prentice  who  was 
ordained  May  22,  1753.  He  died  in  office  October 
18,  1755.  Nathan  Avery  followed  him,  and  was 
ordained  April  25,  1759.  He  continued  in  office  till 
he  died  September  7,  1780,  after  a  ministry  of  over 
twenty-one  years.  After  a  brief  interval  he  was 
followed  by  Christopher  Avery  who  was  ordained 
November  29,  1786.  He  ministered  to  the  church 
till  his  death,  July  5,  18 19,  nearly  thirty-three  years. 
The  Separates  continued  their  organization  over 
eighty  years.  At  the  end  of  'that  period  they  so 
far  united  with  the  old  society  as  to  build  a  house 
of  worship  for  joint  occupancy,  with  certain  limit- 
ations. In  1824  Rev.  Joseph  Ayer  was  employed  by 
both  churches  to  supply  their  alternate  worship. 
The  next  step  was  the  reunion  of  the  two  churches, 
March  15,  1827,  and  thus,  after  nearly  eighty-one 
years  of  separation,  this  Separate  church  became 
extinct  as  an  organization. 

It  may  be  added  here  that  while  there  was  no 
Separate  church  as  such  in  Stonington,  there  was 
a  new  society  formed,  during  Mr.  Rossiter's  minis- 
try over  the  First  Church,  called  the  East  Society. 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  lyi 

This  new  enterprise  built  a  new  house  of  worship, 
and  Mr.  Nathaniel  Eels  was  settled  as  its  pastor. 
At  the  death  of  Mr.  Rossiter  in  October,  1762,  Mr. 
Eels  was  chosen  as  his  successor  in  the  pastorate  of 
the  First  Church.  The  East  Society  gave  up  their 
Separate  worship  and  became  united  with  the  First 
Society — a  union  which  still  continues. 

A  Separate  church  was  organized  in  Lyme,  and 
December  25,  1746,  John  Fuller  was  ordained  as 
its  pastor.  In  1759  he  removed  to  Norwich  and 
became  pastor  of  "the  Bean  Hill  Separate  church, 
where  he  remained  but  two  or  three  years.  He  after- 
wards became  pastor  of  the  united  church  in  Plain- 
field,  February,  1769,  where  he  ministered  till  his 
death,  October,  1777.  We  have  no  account  of  what 
became  of  the  church  at  Lyme  after  he  left  it. 

In  the  summer  of  1746  a  very  respectable  part  of 
the  church  in  Scotland  embraced  Separate  princi- 
ples, and  sought  certain  liberties  from  the  pastor, 
Rev.  Ebenezer  Devotion.  He  was  strongly  attached 
to  the  Saybrook  Platform,  and  refused  their  re- 
quests, because  he  deemed  them  contrary  to  good 
order;  whereupon,  to  the  number  of  about  twenty, 
they  withdrew  from  the  stated  services  of  the  stand- 
ing order,  and  held  Separate  meetings  in  private 
houses.  January  22,  1746,  the  offending  members 
were  cited  to  appear  before  the  pastor  and  the 
church,  and  give  their  reasons  for  separating  for  a 
long  time  from  the  ordinances  and  worship  "which 
God  had  set  up  among  them."     Eight  reasons  were 


1 72  The  Separates 

given,  as  follows :  that  this  was  not  a  church  of 
Christ  in  regular  standing;  that  Mr.  Devotion  broke 
a  divine  rule  in  signing  a  paper  against  Elisha 
Paine,  and  reading  it  to  his  congregation,  and  much 
more;  that  Mr.  Devotion  did  not  preach  Christ  ac- 
cording to  their  understanding,  and  other  similar 
charges;  that  the  church  admitted  unconverted  per- 
sons to  communion;  that  Mr.  Devotion  was  not,  in 
their  view,  a  faithful  minister,  and  that  the  church 
was  anti-Christ;  that  they  did  not  enjoy  Mr.  Devo- 
tion's preaching,  but  did  Lawyer  Paine's  and 
others.  Of  course  the  reasons  alleged  were  de- 
clared to  be  insufficient.  An  admonitory  paper  was 
prepared  by  vote  of  the  church,  calling  upon  the  se- 
ceders  to  return,  and  warning  them  of  their  danger. 
A  committee  of  fifteen  was  chosen  to  take  this  paper 
to  the  refractory  members,  endeavor  to  convince 
them  of  their  error,  and  then  read  it  to  them.  March 
17,  1746,  the  church  declared  that,  as  these  persons 
had  withdrawn  for  insufficient  reasons,  and  had  said 
defamatory  things  about  the  church  and  pastor,  for 
which  they  ought  to  be  ashamed  and  make  humble 
acknowledgments,  until  such  time  as  they  manifest 
their  repentance,  "this  church  does  by  the  command 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  solemnly  withdraw  from  them  as 
disorderly  walkers,  and  renounce  communion  with 
them  as  persons  who  cause  divisions  and  contentions 
contrary  to  doctrines  which  we  have  heard  and 
learned — hereby  debarring  them  of  all  powers  to  act 
in  church  affairs,  and  depriving  them  of  all  right  to 
the  special  ordinances  of  the  gospel." 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  173 

These  brethren,  thus  excommunicated,  organized 
as  a  Separate  church  in  the  summer  of  1746.  There 
were  at  first  about  twenty  of  them.  Their  organi- 
zation was  known  as  "The  Brunswick  Church." 
They  adopted  appropriate  articles  and  confession  of 
faith.  In  these  they  declared  Christ  to  be  the  in- 
stitutor  of  his  church;  the  door  by  which  all  enter 
in;  the  head  of  the  church,  which  is  his  spiritual 
house,  and  to  which  he  gives  laws  and  ordinances  of 
worship,  and  which  no  human  power  can  build  or 
give  laws  or  rules  to  govern  it.  They  declared 
their  belief  that  the  Scriptures  are  a  perfect  rule  to 
walk  by,  and  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  in 
religion.  They  declared  their  belief  in  the  Trinity, 
in  foreordination.  in  general  and  special  provi- 
dences, in  Christ  as  alone  possessing  su- 
preme and  lordly  power  in  all  the  churches  upon 
earth  of  which  he  is  the  sole  Head.  They  affirmed 
that  the  government  rests  upon  his  shoulder,  and  that 
his  sovereign  power  is  exercised  by  himself  in  calling 
his  Church,  instituting  its  ordinances,  and  giving 
laws  for  ordering  the  ways  of  his  people  and  his 
house.  The  power  granted  by  Christ  to  his  Church 
is  exercised  by  them  in  admitting  members,  choos- 
ing and  ordaining  their  own  officers,  removing  them 
from  office  and  from  fellowship.  They  declared 
that  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  is  to  be  supported 
apart  from  the  "civil  sword,"  and  without  coercion. 
They  also  declared  their  duty  and  purpose  to  be 
obedient  to  civic  magistrates  as  God's  ministers  in 


174  The  Separates 

civil  affairs.  These  declarations  are  in  keeping 
with  what  has  been  stated  in  a  previous  chapter  con- 
cerning their  beliefs. 

The  Scotland  Separate  church  soon  gained  a  very 
respectable  position,  and  drew  to  itself  some  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  parish.  Various  proceed- 
ings were  instituted  against  it  by  the  consociation. 
But  it  kept  on  in  its  chosen  way.  If  the  members 
were  persecuted  and  imprisoned,  this  only  served 
to  increase  their  zeal.  The  only  pastor  of  the 

church  was  Mr.  John  Palmer,  who  was  ordained 
May  17,  1749,  and  continued  in  his  charge  until  his 
death,  August  13,  1807,  at  the  age  of  eighty-six, 
and  after  a  pastorate  of  fifty-eight  years.  The 
Separates  built  a  meeting-house  southeast  of  Scot- 
land Village,  known  as  the  Brunswick  meeting- 
house. They  found  no  difficulty  in  supporting 
preaching  by  voluntary  subscriptions. 

Mr.  Devotion  was  never  reconciled  to  this  intru- 
sion into  his  diocese.  Every  Sunday  he  was  ac- 
customed to  send  his  negro  servant  with  a  paper  for- 
bidding Mr.  Palmer,  or  any  person,  to  preach  in  the 
Brunswick  meeting-house  that  day.  This  pro- 
hibition served  only  to  increase  the  number  of  at- 
tendants upon  the  preaching  of  Mr.  Palmer,  and  fan 
the  spirit  of  separation  and  opposition  into  a  brighter 
flame. 

After  the  death  of  Mr.  Palmer  the  church  wasted 
away  till,  in  1813,  it  was  dissolved  by  a  vote  of  its 
remaining  members,   most   of   whom   went   to   the 


Whore   They  Were,  etc.  175 

church  in  Canterbury,  where  part  of  them  lived. 
The  meeting-house  stood  till  1850,  says  Rev.  Robert 
C.  Learned. 

The  Preston  Separate  church,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  was  organized  March  17,  1747.  Their  reasons 
for  separating  from  the  regular  church,  their  state- 
ment of  principles,  their  memorials  to  the  legislature, 
praying  for  legal  recognition  and  right  to  hold  meet- 
ings, and  for  exemption  from  taxation  to  support 
the  regular  Congregational  churches  within  whose 
parishes  the  memorialists  lived,  and  the  part  it  acted 
in  appealing  to  the  crown  for  relief,  have  been  stated 
in  a  previous  chapter.  It  remains  to  add  a  word 
about  its  origin  and  final  disappearance.  A  separa- 
tion from  the  church  in  Preston  City  had  taken 
place  prior  to  March  14,  1744,  but  it  did  not  issue  in 
an  organized  church  till  three  years  later.  De- 
cember 11,  1745,  a  meeting  of  the  regular  church 
was  held.  Rev.  Hezekiah  Lord  of  Griswold 
was  present  by  vote  of  the  church  to  as- 
sist in  the  deliberations.  The  question  was 
whether  the  church  should  proceed  to  discipline 
"such  members  as  offenders  who  separated 
from  the  communion  of  it  in  special  ordinances,  and 
attended  a  separate  assembly  on  Lord's  days,  while 
Rev.  Mr.  Treat  was  pastor  and  continued  to  do  so 
since :  Voted  in  the  affirmative."  Accordingly 
the  Separating  brethren  were  summoned  to  appear 
at  a  church  meeting  to  be  held  May  18,  1746. 
Twenty-three  men  and  women  were  cited.       Evi- 


176  The  Separates 

dently  they  were  dismissed,  if  not  excommunicated; 
for  their  names  appear  on  the  roll  of  the  Separate 
church  among  its  charter  members. 

June  18,  1747,  the  "church  manifested  their  evi- 
dence" that  Paul  Park  was  chosen  to  the  pastoral  of- 
fice. He  was  ordained  July  15,  1747.  Trumbull 
says  that  when  he  was  ordained  "it  was  enjoined 
upon  him,  by  no  means  ito  study  or  premeditate  what 
he  should  say  in  public,  but  to  speak  as  the  Spirit 
should  give  him  utterance."  This  church,  like  all 
the  Separate  churches,  followed  the  Cambridge 
Platform,  "with  some  alterations  and  amendments." 
Mr.  Park  continued  in  office  and  kept  the  records  of 
the  church  till  he  died  June  25,  1802,  in  the  eighty- 
second  year  of  his  age,  and  the  fifty-fifth  of  his  min- 
istry. With  his  death  the  church,  which  he  had 
served  so  long,  practically  died.  Meetings  which 
had  become  irregular  during  his  last  days,  became 
more  so  after  he  was  gone.  Occasionally,  Elder 
Christopher  Avery,  or  Deacon  Amos  Avery,  or  some 
other  preacher,  would  hold  services  in  the  old  meet- 
ing-house, or  in  the  neighborhood.  After  Feb- 
ruary, 1 80 1,  only  two  members  were  received  in 
1806,  and  three  in  1807.  An  effort  was  made  to 
revive  the  church  in  181 5.  Twelve  new  members 
were  received.  Benjamin   F.   Park  was  chosen 

clerk,  and  Amasa  Standish  deacon.  It  was  voted 
to  ordain  Amos  Avery  as  their  minister.  He  was 
an  aged  man ;  and  the  ceremony  seems  never  to  have 
occurred.       By  July  27,  181 7,  the  date  of  the  last 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  177 

entry  in  the  records,  the  church  seems  to  have  be- 
come extinct.  Of  the  families  who  had  worshiped 
at  the  Separate  church,  some  returned  to  the  regular 
church  at  Preston  City,  some  became  Methodists, 
some  baptists  and  some  Universalists. 

Elder  Park  preached  a  half-century  sermon  in 
1797.  It  is  said  that  large  audiences  gathered  to 
hear  him.  It  is  also  said  that  several  Sundays  were 
occupied  in  the  delivery.  This  can  easily  be  be- 
lieved; for  the  experiences  through  which  he,  in 
common  with  the  other  Separates,  passed,  must  have 
afforded  material  too  abundant  to  be  disposed  of  in 
one  or  even  two  discourses.  It  was  the  early  cus- 
tom of  the  church  to  ordain  their  deacons.  The 
record  of  the  ordination  of  Elisha  Fitch  in  1765, 
found  upon  the  book  of  the  church,  illustrates  its 
early  practice.  "Mr.  Fuller  of  Norwich  preached 
a  sermon  on  the  occasion;  then  the  church  by  their 
vote  filled  up  their  presbytery  by  adding  Mr.  Fuller 
and  Deacon  Avery;  then  proceeded:  Deacon 
Avery  made  the  first  prayer,  our  pastor  gave  the 
charge,  and  Mr.  Fuller  the  last  [prayer]  ;  the  young 
deacon  read  a  psalm;  we  sang  and  dismissed."  As 
this  was  one  of  the  leading  Separate  churches,  this 
event  may  be  taken  to  represent  the  custom  which 
usually  prevailed  on  such  occasions.  It  is  certain 
that  with  them  the  church,  composed  of  redeemed 
persons,  was  the  final  authority.  This  ordination 
of  Deacon  Fitch  reads  like  an  echo  from  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  Acts.      Elder  Park  was  a  descendant 


12 


1 78  The  Separates 

of  Thomas  Park,  the  first  deacon  of  the  church  at 
Preston  City. 

A  small  Separate  society  was  gathered  in  the 
southeastern  part  of  the  North  Parish,  New  Lon- 
don, now  Montville,  in  1747,  during  the  ministry 
of  Rev.  David  Jewett.  Like  some  other  of  the 
"New  Lights,"  they  held  the  doctrine  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  but  were  opposed  to  close  communion. 
Their  first  leader  was  Dyer  Hyde.  He  succeeded 
in  drawing  away  many  from  the  regular  Congrega- 
tional churches  to  which  they  belonged.  May  17, 
1750,  Joshua  Morse,  a  resident  of  the  North  Parish, 
was  ordained  their  elder.  They  erected  a  house  of 
worship  which  outlasted  their  organization.  They 
kept  together  about  thirty  years.  In  1779  Elder 
Morse  removed  to  Sandisfield,  Massachusetts,  and 
the  church  which  he  had  kept  together  so  long,  soon 
ceased  to  exist.  Out  of  the  remnant  of  it  was  or- 
ganized, in  1788,  what  came  to  be  known  as  the 
Palmer  Baptist  church. 

There  was  a  secession  from  the  First  Society  of 
Windham  about  1747.  If  organized  at  all,  it  did 
not  have  a  long  life.  Backus,  the  historian,  says 
that  Elihu  Morse,  (Elisha  Marsh,  says  Miss  Lamed, 
who  is  probably  right,)  was  ordained  there  October 
7,  1747,  and  that  he  afterwards  became  a  Baptist. 
Probably  this  ended  whatever  there  had  been  at 
Windham  as  a  Separate  society.  The  Baptist  fold 
proved  a  convenient  and  an  agreeable  refuge  for 
many  Separates  on  the  breaking  up  of  their  own 
churches. 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  179 

What  is  now  the  South  Congregational  Church  in 
Middletown,  Conn.,  was  organized  at  Wethersfield, 
January  7,  1747.  It  was  formed,  says  the  pastor, 
Rev.  Frederick  W.  Green,  "as  a  Separatist,  or  as  they 
preferred  to  be  called,  Strict  Congregational  church." 
Like  almost  every  Separate  church,  it  grew  out  of 
the  Great  Awakening.  Mr.  Green  traces  its  origin 
back  directly  to  the  preaching  of  Whitefield  on  the 
South  Green  in  Middletown,  during  his  first  visit  in 
New  England.  Its  original  members  came  from 
towns  "all  the  way  from  Sufneld  on  the  north,  to 
Middletown  on  the  south."  There  were  a  number 
of  towns  along  the  Connecticut  River,  where  the 
"fire  of  Separatism"  seemed  to  burn,  where  the  Say- 
brook  Platform,  and  its  Semi-Presbyterianism,  and 
the  Half -Way  Covenant  were  repudiated,  and  where 
a  consecrated,  rather  than  educated  ministry,  was 
emphasized. 

This  church,  which  was  formed  at  Wethersfield, 
seems  not  to  have  been  an  offshoot  from  any  other 
church,  but  an  independent  movement,  with  a  mem- 
bership scattered  up  and  down  the  Connecticut 
River.  Yet  several,  if  not  all,  of  the  original  mem- 
bers, twenty  or  thirty  in  number,  separated  from  the 
established  churches  in  the  towns  where  they  lived. 
It  seems  to  have  been  gathered  at  the  first  in  the 
house  of  Mr.  Ebenezer  Frothingham,  who  was  a 
leading  spirit  in  the  movement,  and  who  was  or- 
dained, by  the  church  itself,  as  its  first  pastor,  Octo- 
ber 28,   1747.         The  spirit  which  animated  these 


180  The  Separates 

people  was  as  old,  they  believed,  as  the  prophets, 
apostles  and  martyrs.  Naithan  Cole  said,  "Why, 
look  in  the  Bible,  and  you  will  find  that  all  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  and  all  the  apostles 
in  the  New  Testament  and  even  Christ  himself,  the 
Son  of  God,  with  the  martyrs,  were  all  Separatists." 
Frothingham,  the  first  pastor  of  the  Middletown 
church,  states  the  case  in  his  book,  "The  Key  of 
Knowledge,"  as  follows:  "The  main  thing  which 
I  have  in  view  ...  is  free  liberty  of  con- 
science, the  right  of  thinking,  choosing  and  acting 
for  oneself  in  the  matters  of  religion,  which  respect 
God  and  conscience,  and  to  contend  for  this  impor- 
tant privilege,  I  nor  any  other  person  should  not  be 
ashamed  to  do." 

The  South  Church  in  Middletown  thus  had  its  be- 
ginnings in  Strict  Congregational  methods; 
methods  which  were  quite  in  keeping  with  the  usages 
of  the  present.  Of  the  early  years  in  Wethersfield 
little  is  recorded.  It  is  not  known  whether  or  not 
the  law  compelling  them  to  pay  for  the  support  of 
the  regular  church  was  so  rigidly  enforced  that  they 
could  not  endure  it.  "But  for  some  reasons,"  says 
Mr.  Green,  "several  of  the  leading  brethren  moved 
to  New  York,  and  at  the  end  of  about  seven  years' 
struggle  with  the  authorities  it  was  thought  best  to 
remove  Mr.  Frothingham's  home,  and  with  it  the 
seat  of  his  ministry  to  Middletown,  and  here  he  was 
re-installed  over  them  in  1754."  This  location  may 
have  been  chosen  because  there  were  more  members 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  181 

of  the  church  in  Middletown,  and  because  the  op- 
position of  the  town  and  church  was  not  so  violent 
as  in  Wethersfield.  During  the  first  part  of  Mr. 
Frothingham's  ministry  in  Middletown,  the  church 
still  worshiped  in  his  house.  His  pastorate  con- 
tinued forty-five  years.  He,  like  Solomon  Paine  of 
Canterbury,  stood  high  in  the  esteem  of  the  churches 
of  the  Separation. 

Although  it  started  out  as  a  Separate  church,  it 
is  to-day  one  of  the  leading  churches  of  the  Congre- 
gational order.  Rev.  Robert  C.  Learned  says  that  it 
was  reorganized  in  1816.  The  only  churches  still 
remaining  which  were  organized  as  Separate  bodies 
are  the  church  in  South  Killingly,  the  church  in 
Torrington,  according  to  Dr.  McEwen,  the  Benefi- 
cent Church,  Providence,  R.  I.,  and  the  South  Con- 
gregational Church,  Middletown.  Of  the  last  the 
pastor  says,  "Which  still  in  its  financial  and  corpo- 
rate capacity  is  known  as  the  Strict  Congregational 
Society  of  Middletown."  Dr.  George  Leon  Walk- 
er, speaking  of  the  final  issue  of  the  Separate  move- 
ment says,  "Some  of  them  returned  to  communion 
with  the  churches  from  which  they  came  out.  A 
few  of  them — like  the  Second  Church  in  Middle- 
town,  Connecticut,  which  still  retains  the  name  of 
'The  Church  in  the  Strict  Congregational  Society' — 
developed  into  strong  churches  in  connection  with 
the  general  Congregational  fellowship.  A  few  passed 
over  into  the  Baptist  communion."  The  remainder 
died.    It  may  also  be  added  here,  that  these  churches 


1 82  The  Separates 

preserved  pure  and  simple  Congregationalism,  and 
rescued  it  from  the  Presbyterianizing  tendency  of 
such  documents  as  the  Saybrook  Platform.  If  for 
nothing  else,  modern  Congregational  churches  owe 
them  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  keeping  alive  their  his- 
toric polity,  in  the  midst  of  ecclesiastical  influences 
setting  strongly  toward  central  authority,  and  away 
from  the  strict  autonomy  of  the  local  church. 

Mr.  Joshua  Hempstead  says  in  his  diary  that  a 
Separate  church  was  formed  in  East  Lyme,  over 
which  Ebenezer  Mack  was  ordained  as  pastor,  Jan- 
uary 12,  1749.  They  erected  a  house  of  worship 
m  I755-  Mr.  Mack  and  a  majority  of  his  church 
became  Baptists,  and  were  received  into  fellowship 
with  other  churches  of  that  order,  although  they 
continued  the  practice  of  open  communion  until 
1795.  This  was  the  origin  of  what  is  now  known 
as  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  East  Lyme. 

April  18,  1750,  Joseph  Hastings  was  ordained 
pastor  of  a  Separate  church  which  was  then  organ- 
ized in  Sufiield.  They  built  a  house  of  worship  in 
1762.  The  church  soon  became  divided.  Mr. 
Hastings  became  a  Baptist,  and,  in  1769,  pastor  of 
the  Baptist  church  in  Suffield,  into  which  a  portion 
of  his  Separate  church  had  been  organized.  The 
remainder  of  the  Separates  then  chose  Mr.  Israel 
Holley  as  Itheir  pastor,  and  he  was  ordained  in  that 
office,  June  29,    1763.  He  was  afterwards  dis- 

missed, and  preached  in  Granby  and  Cornwall.  This 
church  came  to  an  end  about  1784.       The  members 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  183 

who  had  not  already  become  Baptists,  returned  to 
the  old  church. 

A  Separate  Society  seems  to  have  been  formed  in 
Colchester.  Jabez  Jones  was  ordained  as  its  pastor. 
It  is  probable  that  this  separation  was  due  to  the  re- 
fusal of  Mr.  Little,  the  pastor  of  the  regular  church 
in  Colchester,  to  allow  Mr.  Pomeroy  of  Hebron,  a 
neighboring  town,  to  preach  in  his  church.  A 

lecture  had  been  appointed  for  Mr.  Pomeroy,  ap- 
parently with  Mr.  Little's  consent.  Supposing  that 
he  was  going  to  the  aid  of  a  brother  minister,  Mr. 
Pomeroy  set  out  from  home.  For  some  reason  Mr. 
Little  forbade  his  going  into  the  meeting-house.  A 
large  congregation  had  assembled.  Mr.  Pomeroy 
conceived  it  to  be  his  duty  to  address  them,  thinking 
that  some  might  be  reached  and  saved.  Accord- 
ingly he  retired  a  little  from  the  meeting-house  and 
preached  to  a  large  and  attentive  company.  Com- 
plaint was  made  against  him  for  preaching  contrary 
to  the  law,  and  for  seven  years  he  was  deprived  of 
his  stated  salary.  It  is  not  certain  that  this  was 
the  beginning  of  causes  which  operated  to  bring 
about  the  organization  of  a  Separate  church  at  Col- 
chester. But  it  might  have  been.  At  any  rate, 
it  was  one  of  many  like  instances,  showing  the  utter 
lack  of  religious  liberty  in  Connecticut,  from  1742 
to  1784,  which  frequently  did  result  in  such  protests 
as  separation  from  the  churches  of  the  standing  or- 
der. 

The  date  of  the  formation  of  the  Separate  church 


184  The  Separates 

in  Enfield  is  not  certain.  But  there  are  evidences 
which  seem  to  point  to  its  existence  as  early  as  175 1. 
The  causes  which  led  to  separations  from  the  estab- 
lished churches  elsewhere,  were  operative  in  En- 
field as  early  as  that  year.  There  is,  therefore,  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  separation  took  place  then. 
The  evidence  which  seems  to  establish  this  date, 
1 75 1,  beyond  a  reasonable  question,  is  furnished  by 
correspondence,  recently  discovered,  between  the 
Separate  church  in  Enfield  and  the  Separate  church 
in  Canterbury.  Five  letters  were  written  from  En- 
field. The  first  bears  date  of  "November  28,  Anno 
1 751".  It  begins  "to  the  Church  of  Christ  at 

Canterbury  (greeten)  Beloved  in  the  Lord  for 
help  I  wright  to  you  by  an  agreement  with  the 
Church  in  Enfield."  The  letter  goes  on  to  state  the 
difficulties  in  whose  adjustment  the  assistance  of  the 
church  in  Canterbury  is  sought.  It  says,  "There 
is  the  mystery  of  enecyty  Got  into  this  Church 
where  as  if  it  is  not  Searched  out  it  will  Destroy  this 
body  of  Saints  as  a  Church  here."  It  is  signed  by 
Joseph  Markham.  The  meeting  was  to  take  place 
December  18.  Two  days  later,  "Solomon  paine, 
paster  of  the  Church  of  Christ  at  Canterbury,  and 
thomas  Stevens  paster  of  the  Church  of  Christ  at 
plainfield"  gave  their  decision  on  the  case  in  ques- 
tion. It  was  addressed  "to  the  Church  at  Enfield, 
greeting  wishing  grase,  &c."  It  was  signed  by 
Solomon  Paine  and  Thomas  Stevens.  Three  other 
letters  of  a  similar  character  show,  not  only  that  the 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  185 

Separate  church  in  Enfield  was  in  existence  as  early 
as  1 75 1,  but  also  that  it  was  seriously  rent  by  inter- 
nal dissensions,  and  that  the  dream  of  the  Separates 
for  a  pure  church  was  as  yet  far  from  realization. 

Nathaniel  Collins  was  the  first  pastor  of  this 
church.  He  was  a  son  of  Rev.  Nathaniel  Collins 
who,  in  1699,  had  become  pastor  of  the  regular 
church  in  Enfield.  The  oldest  formal  document  of 
this  church  bears  date  of  April  13,  1762.  A  meet- 
ing was  held  "on  that  day  at  the  house  of 
the  Widow  Abigail  Markham  in  order  to  consult 
matters  relative  to  the  Glorious  Redeemers  vizable 
Kingdom  and  interest  in  the  world."  A  consider- 
able number  were  granted  permission  "to  Renew  and 
come  into  Covenant  with  God  and  one  with  an- 
other." This  meeting  was  adjourned  to  April  27 
to  consider  other  matters  affecting  the  church.  One 
was  as  follows :  "Some  consideration  Pasd  be- 
tween the  church  and  Assembly  and  our  brother 
Nath1  Collins  of  Westfield  who  was  then  present 
for  that  Purpose  by  our  Desire  Relative  to  his  Com- 
ing and  settling  with  us  and  Improving  his  gifts  as 
god  shall  inable  him."  On  the  10th  of  May  follow- 
ing, "the  church  on  their  Part  Plumptly  Desired  him 
to  come  to  their  help  as  above  mentioned  and  he  on 
his  Part  manifested  Resignation  to  the  Will  of  God 
in  that  Respect."  August  20  the  church  was  again 
assembled  to  adjust  certain  difficulties;  it  seemed  to 
be  in  hot  water  most  of  the  time.  At  that  time  Mr. 
Collins  "made  a  gospel  Dedication  of  him  selfe  to  us 


1 86  The  Separates 

as  on  his  part  Ready  to  Comply  with  that  Call 
Which  Seamed  so  Evidently  from  God  and  Man." 
At  the  same  meeting  a  declaration  was  made  which 
reads  like  a  statement  of  doctrine.  Probably  this 
is  the  date  of  the  beginning-  of  Mr.  Collins'  ministry. 
The  statement  by  the  church,  or  renewal  of  their 
covenant,  is  as  follows : — 

We  do  now  as  in  the  Presence  of  the  Great  Eter- 
nal Omnicient  god  who  Knows  the  Secrets  of  all 
hearts  and  in  the  presence  of  angels  and  men  ac- 
knowledge our  Selves  to  be  under  the  most  Solemn 
Covenant  with  the  Lord  ito  be  for  him  and  no  other 
and  we  Do  now  Renew  our  Covenant  with  him. 

i.  We  take  the  one  only  Living  and  True  god 
to  be  our  god  one  God  in  three  Persons  the  father — 
Son  and  holy  Ghost. 

2.  we  take  the  Holy  Scriptures  old  and  New 
Testament  to  be  the  Reveld  mind  and  will  of  god 
and  promise  Through  the  helpe  of  the  holy  Spirit  Ito 
make  them  the  Rule  of  oure  Life  acknowledging 
ourselves  by  Nature  children  of  wrath  and  oure  hope 
of  mercy  with  god  is  only  through  the  Riteousness 
of  Jesus  Christ  apprehended  by  Faith. 

3.  We  now  Call  Heaven  and  Earth  to  Witness 
that  without  ye  last  reserve  we  Doo  give  up  oure 
Selves  Soule  and  Body  and  all  that  we  have  and  are 
to  one  god  through  Jesus  Christ  to  be  Entirely  at  his 
Disposal  both  oure  Selves  oure  Names  and  Estates  as 
god  shall  See  most  for  his  own  glory  and  that  we 
will  Doo  Faithfully  by  the  help  of  gods  Spirit  what 
So  ever  our  Conscience  Influenced  by  the  word  and 
Spirit  of  God  Directs  us  ito  be  Duty  though  it  be 
Never  so  Contrary  to  Nature  both  as  to  Duties  to 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  187 

god  and  man,  and  we  do  also  by  the  assistance  of 
Divine  grace  unitedly  give  up  oure  Selves  one  to  an- 
other in  Covenant  promising  by  the  Help  of  gods 
grace  to  act  Towards  one  another  as  Brethren  in 
Christ  watching  over  one  another  in  ye  Love  of  god 
and  espicially  to  watch  against  all  Jesting  Lightness 
and  foolish  Talking  which  is  not  Convenient  and 
everything  that  Does  not  Become  the  Followers  of 
the  holy  Lamb  of  god  and  to  Seek  ye  good  of  each 
other  and  of  the  Church  universal  for  the  glory  of 
God  and  to  hold  Communion  together  in  the  Wor- 
ship of  god  and  in  the  ordinances  and  Discipline  of 
Christ  in  this  Church  of  God  According  to  Christ's 
visible  .  .  .  [not  legible].  And  submitting 
oure  selves  to  the  Discipline  of  Christ  in  this  Church 
as  part  of  his  mystical  body  according  as  we  shall 
be  guided  by  the  word  and  spirit  of  god,  and  by  help 
of  Divine  grace  Still  to  be  looking  for  more  light 
from  god  which  is  contained  in  the  sacred  script- 
ures beleaving  that  their  is  greater  mysteries  to  be 
solved  and  further  Light  to  Shine  in  ye  Church  be- 
yond what  they  have  ever  yet  attained  to.  Looking 
and  watching  for  the  glorious  Day  when  the  Lord 
Jesus  will  Take  to  himself  his  great  power  and  Reign 
from  Sea  to  Sea  and  from  ye  rivers  to  ye  ends  of 
the  Earth  and  this  Covenant  we  make  with  the  free 
and  full  consent  of  our  soules  Beleaving  [not  leg- 
ible] ratified  in  heaven  before  the  throne  of  god 
and  the  Lamb. 

Even  so  come  Lord  Jesus  Amen  and  Amen. 
Neh.  9-38 — and  chap  10-28-29,  2d  Chron.  15-12 
Isa.  5-5-" 

This  remarkable  document  is  signed  by  fifty  per- 
sons, male  and  female,  with  the  name  of  Nathaniel 


1 88  The  Separates 

Collins,  who  was  henceforth  the  pastor,  at  the  head 
of  the  column.  This  is  the  earliest  known  paper  in 
existence  which  points  directly  to  the  organization 
of  a  Separate  church  in  Enfield.  But  as  it  was  de- 
clared to  be  a  renewal  of  "our  Covenant  with  him," 
it  clearly  points  to  an  organization  already  effected, 
and  justifies  the  view  already  stated  that  the  church 
had  been  in  existence  since  175 1.  It  seems  rea- 
sonable also  to  infer  that  this  restatement  of  faith, 
and  renewal  of  Covenant,  was  made  August  20, 
1762,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  church's  taking  to 
itself  Mr.  Collins  as  pastor. 

As  a  statement  of  belief  it  sheds  additional  light 
upon  the  views  held  by  the  Separates  of  Connecticut. 
As  far  as  it  goes  its  orthodoxy  cannot  be  ques- 
tioned. Its  Trinitarianism  is  pronounced.  Its  be- 
lief in  the  Word  of  God  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice is  unequivocal.  The  covenant  promises  all 
that  could  be  asked.  The  difficulty  was,  as  appears 
from  frequent  councils  called  to  settle  disputes,  they 
did  not  live  up  to  iftr.  These  internal  dissensions,  by 
which  this  church  was  torn,  hastened  its  decline. 

Seven  years  after  the  above  reorganization  the 
Enfield  Separates  petitioned  the  legislature  for  re- 
lief from  taxation  to  support  the  established  church, 
and  for  legal  right  to  exist  as  a  religious  society. 
The  memorial  was  granted  in  May,  1770,  and  so,  af- 
ter more  than  twenty  years  of  existence  the  Separates 
of  Enfield  had  legal  status  as  The  Second  Society 
of  Enfield.    The  memorial  was  opposed  by  the  First 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  189 

Society;  but  in  vain.  The  legislature  had  already 
granted  a  similar  memorial  of  the  church  in  South 
Killingly,  and  adopted  a  more  liberal  policy  towards 
those  who  dissented  from  the  established  order. 

Eighty  names  were  affixed  to  the  memorial,  show- 
ing a  considerable  growth  within  the  seven  years 
since  the  reorganization  referred  to.  But  their 

trials  as  to  the  support  of  the  gospel  were  not  at  an 
end.  It  was  easier  to  promise  than  to  pay.  The 
Separates  were  not  so  very  unlike  other  Christians. 
So  they,  like  other  churches,  had  to  have  meetings 
and  they  chose  committees  ''to  Treat  with  those  Per- 
sons that  Refuse  to  pay  itheir  Respective  Sums,"  or 
"to  Collect  the  Nessessaries  of  Life  for  the  Revd  Mr. 
Collins."  This  was  as  late  as  1777.  The  theory 
of  a  gospel  supported  by  the  free  gifts  of  the  people 
was  one  thing;  to  get  these  gifts  was  quite  an- 
other thing.  And  the  Separates  were,  some  of 
them,  at  least,  compelled  to  resort  to  the  very 
methods  against  which  they  had  protested.  At  any 
rate,  they  found  that  absolutely  free-will  offerings 
did  not  meet  the  necessities  of  the  case.  After  mak- 
ing proper  allowance  for  the  financial  straits  which 
were  clue  to  commercial  and  other  disturbances  of 
the  Revolutionary  War,  i»t  is  evident  from  the  records 
of  the  church,  as  Dr.  Means  well  remarks,  "that 
the  members  of  this  (the  Enfield)  church  had  not 
attained  to  their  own  professed  ideal — that  the  main- 
tenance of  a  church  should  be  voluntary.  Their 
theory  in  this  respect  was  in  advance  of  their  time, 


190  The  Separates 

while  their  practice  failed  to  exemplify  their  theory." 
As    we    have    seen,    the    First    Parish    opposed 
granting  the  memorial  of  the  Separates.  One 

Peter  Reynolds  was  chosen  to  represent  it  "at  the 
Assembly  to  Defend  against  said  petition."  But 
not  only  was  the  second,  or  Separate,  Society  legal- 
ized by  act  of  the  legislature;  also  a  portion  of  the 
land  originally  set  apart  for  the  support  of  the  min- 
istry in  Enfield  was  taken  from  the  firsft  society 
and  given  to  this.  Naturally  there  was  more  or 
less  of  friction,  but  the  relations  between  the  two 
churches  were  as  friendly  as  could  have  been  ex- 
pected under  the  circumstances. 

The  first  meeting  of  the  new  society  after  the  leg- 
islature had  granted  it  legal  existence,  was  held 
November  22,  1770.  But  the  future  was  not  all 
smooth.  Social  problems  perplexed  them  as  well 
as  other  churches.  There  were  the  petty  jealousies 
which  arose  from  the  "common  practice  of  assigning 
seats  in  the  meeting  house  in  accordance  with  the 
supposed  rank  or  worth  of  the  Congregation."  As 
was  the  custom  in  other  churches,  the  duty  of  "seat- 
ing the  meeting  house"  was  assigned  to  a  commit- 
tee. 

How  long  Mr.  Collins  served  as  the  pastor  of  the 
Enfield  Separate  church  we  do  not  know.  There 
are  no  explicit  records  concerning  the  settlement  of 
ministers  to  succeed  him.  There  were  others,  of 
whom  Rev.  George  Atwell  was  one.        It  is  likely 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  191 

that  there  were  intervals  of  considerable  duration 
when  the  church  had  no  pastor.  The  one  bond 
which  held  them  together  was  ''their  common  feel- 
ing of  opposition  to  the  First  Church."  That  such 
was  their  bond  of  fellowship  is  demonstrated  by  the 
fact  that,  when  all  reason  for  further  hostility  was 
removed  through  their  own  legal  incorporation  as  a 
church,  then  radical  elements  of  discord  and  disrup- 
tion appeared  among  themselves — elements  which 
ended  in  the  extinction  of  the  church. 

From  this  Separate  church  a  number  withdrew, 
who  joined  the  Shaker  Community  which  was  being 
formed  in  1786.  Joseph  Markham,  who  seems  to 
have  been  a  disturbing  factor  among  the  Separates, 
was  among  those  who  withdrew.  The  remaining 
members  of  the  church  lived  a  checkered  life.  Dis- 
putes and  divisions  destroyed  their  spirituality  and 
very  maiterially  weakened  the  force  of  the  church. 
After  a  varied  life  of  over  fifty  years  this  Separate 
Society  of  Enfield  merged  into  a  Baptist  church  in 
1806.  Some  of  the  original  Separates  moved  from 
town;  others  died.  Five  men  who  signed  the 
memorial  of  1769  returned  to  the  church  from  which 
they  had  gone  out  more  than  thirty  years  before.  In 
1806  the  land  and  church  and  parsonage  of  the 
Separates  became  the  property  of  the  Baptists.  In 
1842,  when  the  Baptist  society  ceased  to  exist,  the 
property  passed  into  the  hands  "of  what  is  now 
known  as  the  Adventist  Society  of  Enfield."      Thus 


192  The  Separates 

ended  this  chapter  in  the  story  of  the  Separate  move- 
ment in  Enfield.* 

April  15,  1 75 1,  Alexander  Miller  was  ordained 
over  the  Separate  church  in  Voluntown.  He  min- 
istered to  it  till  his  removal  to  Plainfield  about  1758, 
when  its  members  returned  to  the  church  which  they 
had  left.  This  united  church  is  known  as  "the 
church  in  Voluntown  and  Sterling." 

In  North  Groton,  now  Ledyard,  there  was  a  small 
body  of  Separates.  At  what  time  the  society  was 
gathered  we  do  not  definitely  know.  But  Rev. 
Mr.  Tuttle,  in  a  sermon  preached  on  the  forty-eighth 
anniversary  of  his  settlement  in  Ledyard,  says  it  was 
probably  sometime  between  1742  and  1748.  Na- 
thaniel Brown,  Jr.,  probably  a  native  of  the  town, 
was  ordained  as  pastor  of  the  church,  November  14, 
1 75 1,  and  held  the  office  about  four  years.  His  suc- 
cessor was  Park  Allyn,  who  was  born  in  Ledyard  in 
1733.  Mr.  Tuttle  says,  "Elder  Allyn  was,  by  a 
council,  deposed  from  the  ministry  on  account  of  al- 
leged immorality,  and  his  church  was  left  to  be  scat- 
tered. Some  of  the  members  were  living  when  I 
came  (in  181 1)  to  this  place,  and  a  few  of  them 
united  with  this  church  after  it  was  formed."      Rev. 

*I  am  indebted  for  the  principal  facts  relative  to  the  Sepa- 
rate church  in  Enfield  to  Dr.  Oliver  William  Means,  pastor 
of  the  First  Church  in  Enfield,  whose  "sketch  of  the  Strict 
Congregational  Church  in  Enfield"  gives  the  complete  story  of 
the  movement  from  1751  to  1842,  and  is  a  valuable  contribu- 
tion to  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Connecticut.  It  is  pub- 
lished by  the  Hartford  Seminary  Press,  and  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  it  for  details  which  could  not  be  given  here. 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  193 

John  Avery  says,  "The  Separate  church  edifice  stood 
about  a  mile  west  of  the  Congregational.  It  was 
removed  to  Gales  Ferry  in  1803;  and  for  more  than 
fifty  years,  standing  where  the  Methodist  church 
now  stands,  was  occupied  by  the  Methodist  people 
as  their  place  of  worship.  The  old  church  edifice, 
which  was  about  as  large,  I  think,  as  an  old-time 
country  schoolhouse,  was  standing  at  Gales  Ferry 
and  used  as  a  barn  several  years  after  I  began  my 
ministry  in  Ledyard,"  in  1881. 

Mr.  Allyn  died,  February  13,  1804.  After  he 
was  deposed  the  church  does  not  seem  to  have  had 
any  pastor,  or  even  stated  supply.  It  kept  along 
for  some  time,  probably  till  about  181 1.  But  just 
how  long  its  organization  continued  we  do  not 
know;  for  if  it  ever  had  any  records,  they  have  not 
come  down  to  us.  It  is  likely  that  neighboring 
Separate  ministers  preached  for  it  occasionally. 
Those  who  did  not  join  Mr.  Turtle's  church  became 
scattered. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  said  that  about  1745" 
50  Elder  Park  Avery,  a  Separate  minister,  fitted  up 
a  large  room  in  the  house,  on  Poquonock  plain, 
which  James  Avery  had  built  in  1656,  and  used  it 
for  public  worship.  "There  he  and  the  church 

which  he  had  gathered  held  public  service  for  a  great 
many  years."  When  these  gatherings  ceased  the 
Separate  worship  came  to  an  end  in  Groton. 

A  Separate  Society  was  formed  in  the  "Long  So- 
ciety," Preston.       In  her  history  of  Norwich,  Miss 


13 


194  The  Separates 

Caulkins  says,  "Meetings  were  held  in  that  society, 
but  it  is  not  known  that  a  church  was  organized." 
Since  she  wrote,  the  original  records  of  the  Preston 
Separate  church  have  come  to  light.  In  these 
records,  under  date  of  May  17,  1752,  it  is  stated 
that  a  letter  had  been  received  from  the  Long  So- 
ciety, desiring  the  Preston  church  to  send  messen- 
gers "to  assist  in  ordaining  a  pastor."  June  5, 
this  messenger  reported  that  "The  Evidence 
was  Clear  that  Jonathan  Storey  Was  Called  of 
God  and  Chosen  by  ye  Church  to  ye  office 
of  a  Pastor  who  was  ordained  by  y6  laying  on  of 
hands  by  ye  Churches'  Presbyters:  namely:  Elder 
Hide  [Norwich  Town]  :  Eldr  John  Palmer  [Scot- 
land] :  Eld  Paul  Parke  and  Joseph  Elderkin  Broth- 
er." This  record  points  to  a  church  in  the  Long 
Society  and  fixes  the  date  of  Mr.  Story's  ordina- 
tion between  May  17  and  June  5,  1752.  August 
5,  1752,  the  Preston  church  met  with  the  church 
in  the  Long  Society,  to  consider  the  case  of  Sam- 
uel Gore  who  had  communed  with  the  former 
church  but  refused  to  do  so  more,  giving  as  a 
reason  his  disbelief  in  infant  baptism.  Two  years 
later  the  Preston  church  sent  delegates  to  the 
church  in  the  Long  Society  on  the  occasion  of  the 
ordination  of  a  deacon.  May  21,  1758,  the  Preston 
Church  again  responded  to  a  letter  from  the  church 
in  the  Long  Society,  and  sent  messengers  "to  Give 
them  advice  Respecting  there  Broken  Scatred  Con- 
dition." May  19,  1765,  the  Preston  church  records 
the  admission  of  Mrs.   Nathaniel   Giddings  to  its 


Where  They  Were,  etc.  195 

communion.  She  had  formerly  been  a  member  of 
the  Separate  church  in  the  Long  Society,  "and  when 
that  Chh  was  broek  and  Dissolved  she  with  others 
were  Recommended  by  a  Council  to  any  Chh  they 
were  minded  to  join  with  of  ye  same  Constitution." 
These  minutes  show  conclusively  that  a  Separate 
church  was  organized  in  the  western  part  of  Pres- 
ton, known  then  as  East  Norwich,  or  the  Long 
Society;  that  its  pastor  was  ordained  in  1752;  that 
it  existed  about  thirteen  years;  and  that  its  remain- 
ing members  were  scattered  among  the  neighbor- 
ing Separate  churches,  upon  the  recommendation  of 
the  Council  that  dissolved  the  church.  This  whole 
proceeding,  and  the  records  of  the  Preston  church 
touching  its  sister  church,  have  an  exceedingly 
sitrong  flavor  of  modern  Congregationalism. 

There  was  also  a  Separate  movement  at  Bozrah, 
then  called  Norwich  Plains.  Bliss  Willoughby  was 
probably  ordained  its  pastor  in  1756.  Of  its  fur- 
ther history  we  have  no  knowledge.  The  move- 
ment was  of  short  duration. 

A  Separate  church  was  organized  in  Somers  in 
1769.  The  First  Church,  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Leav- 
itt,  in  1 761,  became  greatly  distracted,  and  was 
divided.  Part  became  Separates  and  built  a  meeting- 
house. Mr.  Ely  became  their  pastor  from  1769  to 
1774.  He  afterwards  was  prominent  in  Shay's  re- 
bellion in  western  Massachusetts,  and  died  in 
prison.  For  thirteen  years  after  the  death  of  Mr. 
Leavitt  the  First  Church  was  pastorless.       In  Au- 


196  The  Separates 

gust,  1774,  Dr.  Backus  became  the  pastor.  Under 
him  the  two  churches  became  one  again,  the  Sepa- 
rates returning  in  great  harmony  to  the  fold 
whence  they  had  gone  out. 

In  Prospect,  a  Separate  church  was  organized  be- 
tween 1770  and  1780.  Benjamin  Beach  was  pastor 
for  several  years.  In  1798  the  present  church  was 
formed.  The  Separates  were  unable  to  support  the 
gospel,  alone,  and  most  of  them  united  with  the 
new  church.  The  old  Separate  meeting-house  was 
occupied,  at  first,  by  the  new  society,  having  been 
repaired  in  1801. 

In  1786  a  Strict  Congregational  society  was 
formed  in  Torrington  by  several  members  who 
withdrew  from  the  regular  church.  They  com- 
menced the  erection  of  a  house  of  worship.  In 
March,  1787,  by  vote  of  the  church,  Lemuel  Haynes, 
a  colored  preacher,  a  man  of  great  shrewdness  and 
wit,  and  who  ministered  to  various  white  congre- 
gations for  about  fifty  years,  was  chosen  pastor. 
Though  not  installed  he  held  this  office  about  two 
years.  In  1791,  by  the  aid  of  a  council  the  two 
churches  adopted  new  articles  of  faith  and  a  cove- 
nant, and  were  reunited. 

In  Bethlehem,  in  Coventry  and  in  New  Milford 
the  spirit  of  Separation  manifested  itself  to  some 
extent,  but  not  to  such  a  degree  as  to  crystalize  into 
Separate  societies.  In  Haddam  there  were  move- 
ments towards  Separation.  A  society  was  formed 
in  1785.     In  1792  they  professed  Baptist  principles, 


Where  They   Were,  etc.  197 

»nd  were  received  into  the  fellowship  of  that  de- 
nomination. 

These  are  the  principal  instances  of  separation 
from  the  standing  order.  Several  returned  to  the 
fellowship  of  the  churches  from  which  they  had 
gone  out.  Three  still  remain  in  Connecti- 
cut:  South  Killingly,  the  South  Church  in 
Middletown,  and  the  church  in  Torrington.  Of 
the  last  two  Dr.  McEwen  says  that  they 
"as  churches  .  .  .  became  Separates,"  but 
soon  reverted  to  their  original  connection  with 
Congregationalists.  It  seems,  however,  that  the 
church  in  Middletown  was  gathered  as  a  Separate 
church,  as  we  have  already  seen.  In  several  cases 
the  church  became  Baptist.  In  one  or  two  in- 
stances a  Universalist  church  resulted.  In  one  case 
a  colony  of  Shakers  was  the  final  issue.  The 
church  in  Canterbury,  it  is  claimed,  became  Sepa- 
rate as  a  church.  But  it  became  extinct.  Only 
two  or  three  survived  into  the  ninteenth  century. 
That  in  Preston  seems  to  have  been  the  last  to  dis- 
appear. The  church  in  Canterbury,  during  its  com- 
paratively brief  life,  seems  to  have  been  the  leading 
church  of  the  order. 

In  Massachusetts,  as  we  have  seen,  a  number  of 
the  Separates  embraced  the  Baptist  faith.  Backus 
says  that  "more  than  threescore  members  of  the 
Separate  church  in  Sturbridge,  including  all  their 
officers  were  baptized  in  1749."  In  September  of 
the  same  year  Elder  Ebenezer  Moulton  of  Brim- 


198  The  Separates 

field  baptized  several  in  Bridgewater  and  in  Rayn- 
ham,  who  left  the  Separate  churches  in  those  towns. 
He  adds  that  Baptist  elders  "baptized  many  in  the 
Separate  churches  of  Connecticut,  and  it  seemed  as 
though  all  those  churches  would  become  Baptists." 
But,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  impossible  for  the  Sepa- 
rates, who  believed  in  sprinkling  and  infant  bap- 
tism, to  unite  with  the  Baptists,  who  did  not  be- 
lieve in  these  ordinances,  and  so  there  were  few 
cases  in  which  Separate  churches  went  over  to  that 
communion. 

A  council  of  Separate  churches  was  held  at  South 
Killingly,  September  19,  1781,  to  agree  upon  mat- 
ters of  discipline,  a  confession  of  faith,  and  other 
questions  pertaining  to  the  welfare  of  the  churches. 
This  seems  to  have  been  the  inauguration  of  the 
custom  of  holding  yearly  meetings  on  the  third 
Thursday  in  September.  It  was  also,  without  doubt, 
the  beginning  of  the  "Strict  Congregational  Con- 
vention of  Connecticut,"  which,  as  we  have  seen, 
exercised  jurisdiction  in  Long  Island  till  a  conven- 
tion was  organized  there  in  1791.  The  decay  of  the 
churches  which  comprised  it  soon  brought  an  end 
to  the  convention.  As  but  two  or  three  societies 
survived  the  century,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude 
that  the  Convention  did  not.  The  last  general  meet- 
ing, of  which  the  records  of  the  Preston  church 
make  mention,  was  held  in  1797. 


VII 

CONCLUSION 

The  foregoing  chapters  tell  the  story  of  a  relig- 
ious  movement   which   took  place  chiefly  between 
1740  and  1755.      A  few  societies  were  formed  later, 
but  they  did   not    reach   any   considerable   size  or 
influence.     The  movement,  for  reasons  which  will 
suggest   themselves,    never   spread    far   beyond    its 
original  limits,  within  which  it  was  mainly  confined. 
As  has  been  seen,  it  began  in  eastern  Connecticut 
as  an  indirect  result  of  the  great  revival;  as  a  direct 
protest,  on  the  part  of  earnest  men  and  women, 
against    the    loose   practice    and    discipline   of    the 
churches  established  under  the  Saybrook  Platform. 
The  movement  was  attended  with  not  a  few  extrava- 
gances;    yet   we   cannot  but   sympathize  with   the 
motive  that  was  behind  it.     The  Separates  believed, 
with  the  early  Fathers  of  New  England,  and  with 
Hooker  of  Hartford,  and  with  Davenport  of  New 
Haven,  that  only  regenerate  persons  were  eligible 
to  church  estate.     They  therefore  stopped  all  who 
sought  admission  thereto,  at  the  door  of  the  church, 
to  enquire  as  to  their  religious  experience,  and  as 
to  the  evidence  which  they  gave  of  regenerate  char- 
acter.    In  this  important  particular  the  established 
churches,  as  we  have  seen,  had  grown  exceedingly 
remiss;  and  this  remissness  the  Separates  could  not 

199 


200  The  Separates 

endure.  Dr.  Oliver  W.  Means,  in  his  story  of  the 
Strict  Congregational  Church  of  Enfield,  says,  "A 
careful  study  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Separatist 
Church  of  Enfield  will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that,  in 
common  with  other  churches  of  the  same  order,  this 
church  stood  in  stubborn  opposition  to  certain 
worldly  practices  that  had  gathered  about  the  estab- 
lished churches  of  that  day." 

The  Separates  also  believed,  as  is  shown  by  their 
declarations  of  belief  and  practice,  that  Christ  alone, 
and  not  any  civil  power,  of  any  sort  whatsoever, 
was  the  source  of  all  authority  in  the  church,  and 
therefore  that  the  church,  as  his  body,  was  com- 
petent to  manage  and  direct  its  local  affairs,  without 
the  interference  of  the  State.  Here  they  certainly 
occupied  ground  held  by  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby, 
more  than  a  century  and  a  quarter  before,  by  the 
Fathers  of  New  England,  and  by  the  Congregational 
churches  of  to-day.  In  both  these  contentions  we 
must  take  sides  with  them  as  against  the  civil 
power  and  the  churches  arrayed  against  them. 
They  simply  stood  on  the  ground  on  which  the 
churches  of  New  England  were  originally  organ- 
ized. The  fact  that  almost,  if  not  quite,  without 
exception,  these  churches  adopted  the  Cambridge 
Platform  of  1648,  proves  that  their  ecclesiastical 
polity  was  an  expression  of  primitive  New  England 
Congregationalism.  And  as  their  idea  of  the  church 
was  in  so  complete  accord  with  views  so  generally 
prevalent  now,  we  must  admit  that  they  were,  at 


Conclusion  201 

least  in  this  one  respect,  a  hundred  years  in  ad- 
vance of  their  time.  Their  break  with  the  old 
Puritan  idea  of  a  parish,  which  was  a  legacy  in- 
herited from  the  State  establishments  of  Europe, 
was  none  too  emphatic  and  came  none  too  soon. 
A  civil  body,  organized  to  manage  the  affairs  of 
Christ's  visible  Church,  was  their  peculiar  aversion; 
and  with  good  reason.  The  modern  movement  to 
enable  churches  to  manage  their  own  material 
affairs,  without  the  intervention  of  a  parish,  often 
constituted  of  men  of  the  world,  in  no  sympathy 
with  the  Church,  is  only  an  effective  expression  of 
the  idea  of  the  Separates  of  Connecticut,  more  than 
a  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago. 

It  is  in  Puritanism  in  New  England  that  we  find 
the  first  beginnings  of  some  of  the  views  which 
are  perpetuated  in  modern  Unitarianism.  First 
was  the  view,  which  found  formal  expression  in 
the  Half-Way  Covenant,  that  a  personal  experi- 
ence of  the  new  birth  was  not  necessary  to  church 
membership  if  the  life  were  outwardly  correct. 
Next  was  the  view  which  magnified  the  parish  at 
the  expense  of  the  church.  The  Separates  preserved 
the  traditional  theories  and  Congregationalism  of 
the  Pilgrims,  and  insisted  that  the  church,  with- 
out a  secular  helm,  the  parish,  was  autonomous  in 
both  financial  and  spiritual  management.  In  this 
respect  also  they  were  in  advance  of  their  day. 

The  Saybrook  Platform,  as  it  was  endorsed  by 
the  Connecticut  legislature,  October,  1708,  was  ac- 


202  The  Separates 

companied  by  the  toleration  act,  of  the  previous 
May,  entitled  "for  the  ease  of  such  as  soberly  dis- 
sent." But,  as  we  have  seen,  this  act  was  repealed, 
in  May,  1743,  and  all  liberty  was  gone  for  all  who 
could  show  nothing  to  differentiate  them  from  Con- 
gregationalists  or  Presbyterians.  The  ecclesiastical 
establishment  in  Connecticut  was  as  rigorous  and 
unsparing  as  that  from  which  the  Fathers  had  fled 
in  1608  and  1630.  It  continued  till  1784,  when 
the  Saybrook  Platform,  by  act  of  the  legislature, 
ceased  to  be  binding.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
Separate  churches  were,  in  their  simple  ecclesias- 
tical polity,  more  in  accord  with  the  democratic 
character  of  our  modern  Congregational  churches, 
than  those  which  adopted  the  Presbyterial  provi- 
sions of  the  Saybrook  Platform.  The  name  which 
they  chose  for  themselves — Strict  Congregational 
Churches — shows  that  they  claimed  to  ad- 
here strictly  to  the  democratic  form  of  church  or- 
ganization, while  they  charged  against  the  State 
churches,  and  not  without  reason,  that  they  were 
partly  Presbyterial. 

In  view  of  these  facts  the  collapse  of  the  whole 
movement  within  half  a  century  creates  surprise, 
and  awakens  the  suspicion  that  there  was  in  it  some 
fatal  structural  weakness.  A  movement  in  which 
was  so  much  to  commend  could  not  so  completely 
disappear,'  leaving  scarcely  anything  but  its  history 
behind  it,  unless  there  were  some  radical  defects 
in    it.         The    course    of    the    Separates    was    in 


Conclusion 


203 


open  defiance  of  law,  and,  as  we  have  seen, 
brought  upon  them  most  bitter  persecution, 
as  well  as  arrayed  against  them  all  the  powerful 
social  influence  of  the  established  churches. 
But  their  decay  was  due  to  deeper  causes,  inherent 
in  the  movement  itself.  Persecution  and  opposition 
did  not  crush  out  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby,  nor 
the  Puritans  who  settled  around  Massachusetts  Bay. 
Further,  the  most  rapid  decline  of  the  Separates 
of  Connecticut  dates  from  the  year  when  the  legis- 
lature grudgingly  granted  the  petition  of  the  church 
at  South  Killingly  to  be  relieved  from  taxation  to 
support  the  minister  of  the  regular  church.  But  the 
relief  came  too  late.  Their  original  leaders  were 
dead  in  most  cases,  and  they  were  cast  down  by 
discouragement.  They  were  torn  by  internal  dis- 
sensions. In  many  cases  there  were  irreconcilable 
differences  upon  the  question  of  baptism,  which 
could  have  but  one  issue.  Soon  after  the  death  of 
Solomon  Paine  the  Canterbury  church  ceased.  In 
twenty  years  the  Mansfield  church  had  run  its 
course.  In  1806  the  Enfield  church  had  come  to  an 
end.  The  Preston  church  owed  itself  to  Paul  Park, 
its  pastor  for  over  fifty  years.  Its  length  of  life 
and  growth  were  due  to  his  industry  and  influence. 
Though  it  existed  several  years  after  his  death, 
living  an  irregular,  lingering  life,  till  about  1817, 
it  practically  died  with  him. 

Something    is    radically    wrong    in    any    church 
whose  life  and  vigor  are  so  dependent  upon  any  per- 


204  The  Separates 

son.  Several  causes  may  be  pointed  out  in  the 
Separate  movement,  which  limited  its  influence  and 
its  life.  It  often  began  and  continued  in  a  kind  of 
emotional  excess.  These  people  confounded  relig- 
ious experience  with  certain  sensuous  emotions,  and 
judged  the  former  by  the  degree  of  the  latter.  They 
regarded  certain  bodily  contortions  as  necessary 
evidences  of  the  presence  and  the  workings  of  the 
Spirit.  They  measured  zeal  by  the  violence  of  one's 
action,  and  accused  ministers,  who  were  moderate 
in  their  style  of  preaching,  with  lacking  unction. 
The  doctrine  of  perfection,  in  its  objectionable, 
fleshly  form,  crept  in  among  some  of  them.  In 
some  cases  they  went  to  even  greater  excesses  than 
when  Davenport  was  their  leader.  Some  of  them, 
says  Tracy,  became,  "in  their  own  esteem  too  holy 
to  receive  the  ordinances  from  any  such  minister 
as  was  then  on  earth,  and  therefore  baptized  each 
other.''  In  some  cases,  narrated  by  Backus,  they 
ignored  the  obligation  of  the  marriage  vows,  and 
scandalous  results  were  notorious.  Happily,  such 
instances  were  rare.  But  those  which  existed 
showed  the  danger  of  a  false  zeal,  which  defeats 
itself.  The  extravagances  of  the  movement,  and 
in  which  those  concerned  in  it  persisted,  helped  to 
deprive  it  of  much  of  the  power  and  influence  which 
otherwise  would  have  attended  it. 

The  weakness  of  the  movement  was,  in  a  meas- 
ure, attributable  to  another  cause.  We  refer  to 
the  illiteracy  and  lack  of  education  on  the  part  of 


Conclusion  205 

both  its  leaders  and  its  rank  and  file.  The  charge 
given  to  Paul  Park,  when  he  was  ordained  over  the 
Preston  church,  not  to  premeditate  what  he  should 
say,  when  preaching,  illustrates  the  prevalent  spirit 
of  the  Separates.  They  believed  that  human  learn- 
ing, especially  as  related  to  declaring  the  truth  of 
God,  was  a  snare  and  a  delusion,  liable  to  lead  men 
into  error.  They  professed,  therefore,  to  rely  solely 
and  directly  upon  the  enlightenment  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  contempt  of  learning,  not  only  in  the 
people  themselves,  but  also  in  their  leaders,  brought 
forth  the  natural  fruits  of  ignorance,  coupled  with 
false  zeal  and  a  certain  degree  of  superstition.  It 
resulted,  often,  in  a  strange  misunderstanding  of  the 
Bible.  Their  leaders  were  usually  men  taken  from 
their  own  membership,  and  ordained  as  their  pas- 
tors, without  any  preparation  for  their  work.  As 
a  consequence  they  usually  attracted  to  themselves 
the  less  stable  portion  of  the  community,  and  those 
persons  who  love  to  run  after  novelties  in  religion. 
Naturally,  their  hold  was  not  strong  upon  a  vigor- 
ous and  permanent  life.  Nor  were  they  able  always 
to  exert  a  commanding  influence  in  the  communi- 
ties where  they  were  planted.  There  were,  of 
course,  here  and  there  exceptions.  But  these  were 
of  a  character  to  prove  the  rule. 

Their  claim  to  what  they  called  "the  key  of  knowl- 
edge," was  still  another  source  of  weakness.  By 
this  they  meant  that  Christ  had  given  them  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit  in  such  measure  that  they  could  infalli- 


206  The  Separates 

bly  tell  a  Christian  from  one  who  is  not,  as  readily 
as  "a  sheep  may  be  known  from  a  dog,"  and  that 
those  only  "with  whom  they  held  communion  in  the 
inward  actings  of  their  own  souls  were  Christians." 
Doubtless  there  are  tests,  given  in  the  Word  of 
God,  by  which  disciples  may  be  known.  But  the 
fact  that  councils  were  called  with  great  frequency, 
by  many  of  the  Separate  churches,  to  settle  cases 
of  discipline,  proves  that  sometimes  their  "key  of 
knowledge"  did  not  fit  the  lock.  A  good  many  of 
these  churches,  like  the  one  in  Enfield,  were  per- 
petually in  trouble,  because  the  brethren  did  not 
dwell  together  in  unity.  Besides,  their  claims  to  an 
intuitive  knowledge  of  Christian  character  led  them 
into  great  extravagances  in  church  discipline.  Their 
excessive  zeal  for  a  pure  church  often  overdid  the 
matter.  Their  tests  were  frequently  more  sentiment- 
al than  real.  An  excess  of  joy,  an  outward  view  of 
Chrisit,  visions  which  some  of  them  claimed  to  have, 
and  similar  proofs  were  applied  and  depended 
on  by  them,  to  determine  whether  men  had  been 
born  again.  The  success  of  this  method  is  best  told 
by  their  oft  recurring  cases  of  discipline,  which  kept 
churches  in  a  constant  turmoil.  Miss  Larned,  in  her 
history  of  Windham  County,  says,  "But  it  was  when 
turned  upon  themselves  that  the  'Key  of  Knowledge' 
did  the  greatest  injury.  'Absolute  certainty'  of  the 
spiritual  condition  of  another  on  admission  to  the 
church  membership  did  not  prevent  extreme  dis- 
trust afterward.     If  a  brother  or  sister  did  not  feel 


Conclusion  207 

a  positive  interflowing  of  sympathy  and  affection 
with  some  particular  person,  some  hidden  sin  was 
the  cause,  which  must  be  sought  out,  detected,  con- 
fessed, and  brought  to  judgment  before  they  could 
commune  together  at  the  Lord's  table."  The  result 
was  that,  to  the  detriment  of  the  church,  the  most 
trivial  things  were  made  occasions  of  complaint  and 
discipline.  No  other  cause  more  rapidly  hastened 
the  decay  and  disintegration  of  the  Separate 
churches.  As  an  example,  take  the  complaint  of 
Joseph  Markham  against  the  church  in  Enfield. 
The  charge,  as  appears  in  the  finding  of  Solomon 
Paine  of  Canterbury,  and  Thomas  Stevens  of 
Plainfield,  to  whom  the  case  was  referred,  was  that, 
"BenJ  Simons  servant  to  me  the  Subscriber  has  left 
the  servis  of  me  his  Sd  master  to  the  Damig  of  my 
outward  Estate  and  to  the  wounding  of  the  cause 
of  Christ,  and  this  Church  of  Christ  at  Enfield  has 
Countenanced  the  Sd  benjamin  in  the  leving  of  my 
Sd  servis  and  fellowshiping  with  him  in  leving  my 
sturidship  hereby  I  shew  my  dislike  and  Requier  the 
Sd  Church  to  make  gospel  Sattisfaction  for  their 
So  doing."  It  was  further  complained  that,  while 
Markham  was  in  prison,  the  said  Benjamin  married 
contrary  'to  Markham's  advice,  which,  it  was 
claimed,  the  church  encouraged  him  to  do,  to  the 
great  detriment  of  the  said  Markham.  This  is  given 
as  an  example  of  the  trivial  cases  of  discipline  which 
were  constantly  rending  these  churches,  weakening 
their  power,  and  hastening  their  final  disintegration. 


208  The  Separates 

Manifestly  their  "Key  of  Knowledge"  was  as  little 
successful  in  securing  the  pure  church  of  their 
dreams,  as  the  loose  practices  of  the  standing 
churches,  against  which  they  protested. 

There  may  have  been  other  elements  of  weakness 
in  the  movement,  but  these  were  the  principal  ones, 
which  were  sure,  soon  or  late,  to  bring  it  to  grief. 
There  was  another  reason  for  the  final  disappear- 
ance of  these  churches,  which  was  not  inherent  in 
them.  The  loose  practices,  against  which  the  Sepa- 
rates protested,  finally  disappeared,  state  control 
came  to  an  end,  and  the  religious  liberty  for  which 
they  contended  was  restored.  The  powerful  preach- 
ing of  Edwards,  and  the  bold  stand  which  he  took 
against  admitting  to  church  membership  any  but 
regenerate  persons,  while  it  cost  him  his  pastorate 
at  Northampton,  yet  dealt  a  blow  to  the  Half-Way 
Covenant  and  its  practice,  from  which  it  never  re- 
covered. While  it  continued  through  the  last  half 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  it  did  so  with  a  con- 
stantly diminishing  hold  upon  the  churches.  The 
revivals  with  which  that  century  closed,  and  the 
nineteenth  century  opened,  finished  the  work,  and 
the  regular  churches  came  back  into  the  ways  for 
which  the  Separates  contended,  both  in  "discipline 
and  in  methods  of  support — the  original  Congrega- 
tional ways  of  the  Separatists  of  Scrooby.  There 
was,  therefore,  no  further  reason  for  their  separate 
organization.  The  end  which  they  had  in  view  was 
gained.       It  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  Separate 


Conclusion  209 

movement  contributed  very  largely   to  the  change 

in  practice  and  discipline  which  finally  took  place  in 
the  regular  churches.  There  was  in  it  too  little  of 
real  strength,  and  too  much  of  structural  weakness. 
Nevertheless,  there  is  good  reason  for  the  words  of 
the  pastor  of  the  South  Congregational  Church  in 
Middletown,  Conn.  :  "The  Congregational  church 
of  to-day  is  stronger  and  better  able  to  do  its  work, 
and  has  more  faith  in  its  own  polity,  unmixed  with 
any  stronger  form  of  government  because  of  the 
lesson  which  she  so  unwillingly  learned  from  the 
Separatists." 

Rev.  Robert  C.  Learned,  in  The  New  England cr 
for  1853,  calls  this  movement  a  "sad  mistake." 
From  some  points  of  view  it  was.  But  the  same 
spirit  which  led  the  men  of  Scrooby  to  leave  the 
Established  Church  of  England  in  the  early  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  led  the  Separates  of  New 
England  to  leave  the  churches  of  the  "standing 
order,"  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century. 
The  mistake  of  the  latter  was  the  mistake  of  the 
former,  which  we  must  forever  be  glad  that  they 
made. 

The  Separates  of  New  England  were  for  the 
most  part  sincere,  honest,  pious  men  and  women. 
This  was  shown  in  their  life  and  death.  In  many 
things  their  views  were  more  correct  than  those  of 
their  opponents.  The  chief  charge  against  them 
was  their  separation.  Edwards,  and  those  who 
agreed   with   him   among  the   clergy,   advised   the 


210  The  Separates 

course  of  the  old  Puritans,  who  sought  to  reform 
the  Church  of  England  from  within.  The  Sepa- 
rates took  issue  here,  followed  the  men  of  Scrooby, 
and  came  out.  Puritanism,  with  its  parish,  led 
straight  back  to  the  evils  to  be  corrected.  We  in- 
cline to  think  that  they  took  the  only  course  open  to 
them. 

It  was  a  decisive  step,  we  think,  in  the  right 
direction,  and  was  not  wholly  without  results.  It  is 
to  be  regretted,  however,  that  a  movement  in  which 
there  were  so  great  possibilities  was  defeated  in 
large  measure  because  those  engaged  in  it,  while 
honest  and  sincere,  allowed  themselves  to  be  carried 
to  such  unreasonable  extremes.  There  was  abun- 
dant occasion  for  such  a  movement.  The  principles 
of  liberty,  expressed  in  the  simple  polity  of  Congre- 
gationalism, and  that  polity  itself,  were  threatened 
by  the  oppressive  and  Presbyterianizing  measures 
of  the  older  and  established  churches  of  Connecti- 
cut, under  the  Saybrook  Platform.  Tracy  very  truly 
says,  "From  a  candid  consideration  of  the  whole 
subject  ...  it  appears  .  .  .  that  the  pre- 
valence of  Separatism,  and  its  concomitant  errors 
and  evils,  was  far  less  extensive  than  it  has  usually 
been  represented;  that  the  amount  of  evil  fairly 
chargeable  to  this  source  in  the  whole  country,  has 
been  greatly  overestimated,  while  the  good  which  it 
aided  to  accomplish,  has  not  been  acknowledged." 
So  then  the  Separate  movement  served  its  purpose, 
had  ilts  influence,  gave  in  its  testimony  for  a  pure 


Conclusion  211 

church,  helped  to  save  primitive  Congregationalism, 
contributed  considerably  to  the  building  up  of  the 
churches  of  the  Baptist  order,  and  made  an  inter- 
esting and  instructive  chapter  in  the  ecclesiastical 
history  of  New  England. 


ill 


I! 


F 

r 

w 

11 


BX7139.B63 
'ne  separates- 


1012  00020  7797 


111 


i 


> 


■  -       ■'■V'iiii! 

:■->  ..   i!!l!|iiiS!i 


